The Earth Is Not Spinning

I don't think The Earth is spinning.  Nasa says it is spinning at around 1,000 miles per hour.  Wikipedia says commercial jet aircraft generally cruise at around 500 m.p.h.  I flew from the northeastern united states to china, which is about half way around the world.  Nasa says the world is round and at the equator it is about 25,000 miles in circumference.  So, I flew about 12,500 miles each way. 

Nasa also says the Sun, relative to the earth, is not moving.  In other words, they claim when the Sun rises in the east and sets in the west, it is because the earth is spinning west to east.  So, my flight from northeastern united states should have encountered, after take off, a earth that was spinning away from the plane at around 1,000 m.p.h.  The plane cruises at around 500 mph.  So, the planes combined speed should have been about 1500 m.p.h., on its way to China and should have taken a little over 8 hours.  However, on it's way back to the states, it would have encountered an Earth spinning away from it at around 1,000 m.p.h.  So, it's combined speed should have been around a negative 500 m.p.h., since the earth is supposed to spin about twice as fast as the plane flies.  Thus, flying backwards from China to the states and taking about 24 hours to arrive in America. 

Unfortunately, it appears Nasa was not correct.  My flight took about 24 hours both ways and on the way home from China, I had a layover in Hawaii, which would have been impossible, if we flew home backwards.  Thus, it seems, Nasa is incorrect about the Earth spinning.



this is not a picture of the earth spinning at over 1,000 mph from outer space

People knew the earth as spinning long before NASA. Perhaps read up on Leon Foucault.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%C3%A9on_Foucault

I don't think The Earth is spinning.  Nasa says it is spinning at around 1,000 miles per hour.  Wikipedia says commercial jet aircraft generally cruise at around 500 - 550 m.p.h.   I flew from the northeastern united states to china, which is about half way around the world.  Nasa says the world is round and at the equator it is about 25,000 miles in circumference.  So, I flew about 12,500 miles each way. 

Well, no!  The direct non-stop distance via the Great Circle route is around 6,800 miles.

Nasa also says the Sun, relative to the earth, is not moving.  In other words, they claim when the Sun rises in the east and sets in the west, it is because the earth is spinning west to east. 

Saying "Nasa also says the Sun, relative to the earth, is not moving." is grossly wrong and misleading, because:

• The sun is simply NOT stationary relative to the earth.  This implies you are taking the earth to be the reference.
  The sun, relative to the whole Solar System can be regarded as stationary and the earth and other planets orbit it.
  The globe earth has been reasonably well accepted from centuries BCE, while the heliocentric globe model has been around since the 17th century and pretty well accepted for most of that time.
• Hence, since all that was known centuries before NASA, claiming "Nasa also says" is simply blatant propaganda against NASA.

So, my flight from northeastern united states should have encountered, after take off, a earth that was spinning away from the plane at around 1,000 m.p.h.  The plane cruises at around 525 mph.  So, the planes combined speed should have been 1525 m.p.h., on its way to China.

No, not true at all.  The whole atmosphere is rotating with the earth, this has been answered numerous times.  Just think about it!  If that were not true we would all be blown away with winds of up to 1,000 mph!
Another point is that a direct flight from NE USA to Beijing would probably be almost the North Pole and nowhere near the equator!  I don't know the exact route the plane would take.  It would vary depending on wind and political conditions, like you don't fly over Syria, parts of Iraq (I have flown over Baghdad) or North Korea!
So, the cruising speed of the plane relative to the air would be about 525, ground speed might be this ±100 mph or so.

However, on it's way back to the states, it would have encountered an Earth spinning away from it at around 1,000 m.p.h.  So, it's combined speed should have been around a  negative 475 m.p.h.  Thus, flying backwards from China to the states and taking approximately 24 hours to arrive in America. 

Wrong, wrong, wrong - for the same reasons.

Unfortunately, it appears Nasa was not correct.  My flight took about 24 hours both ways and on the way home from China, I had a layover in Hawaii, which would have been impossible, if we flew home backwards.  Thus, it seems, Nasa is incorrect about the Earth spinning.

Yes, 24 hours is about the right for the whole route!  I don't know you routes or whether they were direct.
The distance I gave earlier was for a direct flight from around NY to Beijing almost over the North Pole.

Just get over the whole idea that NASA is the one promoting the heliocentric globe model - that is rubbish indoctrination you little sheep get from the hundreds of silly, absolutely false Flat Earth Youtube videos around.
I estimate that 95% of the material in those is simple mistaken ideas about how the globe works, produced by people with absolutely no idea of scale or perspective.
Before you start jumping to conclusions about the heliocentric model, make sure you understand it!

Just to add. Yes the earth does spin. Its why stars and such move across the sky as the night goes on. You can observe other planets and the moon spin during the night with a telescope. The same laws apply there as do they here so why should the earth be any different. An also valid reason for the spherical earth.

Also the earths speed is constant. If your traveling at a constant 30mph in a car. You can freely move around, there is no added or removed speed whatever your doing, unless the car slows down or speeds up.

I don't think The Earth is spinning.

It is. Coriolis effect. Done

I don't think The Earth is spinning.  Nasa says it is spinning at around 1,000 miles per hour.  Wikipedia says commercial jet aircraft generally cruise at around 500 m.p.h.  I flew from the northeastern united states to china, which is about half way around the world.  Nasa says the world is round and at the equator it is about 25,000 miles in circumference.  So, I flew about 12,500 miles each way. 

Nasa also says the Sun, relative to the earth, is not moving.  In other words, they claim when the Sun rises in the east and sets in the west, it is because the earth is spinning west to east.  So, my flight from northeastern united states should have encountered, after take off, a earth that was spinning away from the plane at around 1,000 m.p.h.  The plane cruises at around 500 mph.  So, the planes combined speed should have been about 1500 m.p.h., on its way to China and should have taken a little over 8 hours.  However, on it's way back to the states, it would have encountered an Earth spinning away from it at around 1,000 m.p.h.  So, it's combined speed should have been around a negative 500 m.p.h., since the earth is supposed to spin about twice as fast as the plane flies.  Thus, flying backwards from China to the states and taking about 24 hours to arrive in America. 

Unfortunately, it appears Nasa was not correct.  My flight took about 24 hours both ways and on the way home from China, I had a layover in Hawaii, which would have been impossible, if we flew home backwards.  Thus, it seems, Nasa is incorrect about the Earth spinning.



this is not a picture of the earth spinning at over 1,000 mph from outer space

The atmosphere spins with the planet.

Are you really this stupid?

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=64791.msg1726988#msg1726988

four pages on stationary earth: restoring forces paradox, friction, boundary layer, geocentric coriolis force, gases in the atmosphere, hovering capacitor, clouds

I don't think The Earth is spinning.  Nasa says it is spinning at around 1,000 miles per hour.  Wikipedia says commercial jet aircraft generally cruise at around 500 m.p.h.  I flew from the northeastern united states to china, which is about half way around the world.  Nasa says the world is round and at the equator it is about 25,000 miles in circumference.  So, I flew about 12,500 miles each way. 

Nasa also says the Sun, relative to the earth, is not moving.  In other words, they claim when the Sun rises in the east and sets in the west, it is because the earth is spinning west to east.  So, my flight from northeastern united states should have encountered, after take off, a earth that was spinning away from the plane at around 1,000 m.p.h.  The plane cruises at around 500 mph.  So, the planes combined speed should have been about 1500 m.p.h., on its way to China and should have taken a little over 8 hours.  However, on it's way back to the states, it would have encountered an Earth spinning away from it at around 1,000 m.p.h.  So, it's combined speed should have been around a negative 500 m.p.h., since the earth is supposed to spin about twice as fast as the plane flies.  Thus, flying backwards from China to the states and taking about 24 hours to arrive in America. 

Unfortunately, it appears Nasa was not correct.  My flight took about 24 hours both ways and on the way home from China, I had a layover in Hawaii, which would have been impossible, if we flew home backwards.  Thus, it seems, Nasa is incorrect about the Earth spinning.



this is not a picture of the earth spinning at over 1,000 mph from outer space

So you believe that once that plane leaves the ground, the inertia it has from the earths rotation just vanishes? Hahahahahaha fucking retard! How can I take you FE idiots as anything but a Joke. Its like watching a comedy sketch written in real time.

Do you mind telling me what force acts to stop the inertia that the plane has?

Ill give you a clue here. the net effect of the earths spin = nil as it acts upon the plane and the ground equally at all times. you can disregard it from any frame of reference.

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=64791.msg1726988#msg1726988

four pages on stationary earth: restoring forces paradox, friction, boundary layer, geocentric coriolis force, gases in the atmosphere, hovering capacitor, clouds

Oh, yeah...

The molecule must have a velocity, the modulus of which will be

|v| = 0.262516 (R + h) cos ø       per mean solar hour,

taking the sidereal day as 23h 56m 4.091s mean solar time, and the direction of which must be so as to ensure that the molecule goes from s1 to s2. Hence,

v = f (R, h, a, ø).

This implies the existence of a vector field, whose strength determines |v| by being directly proportional to latitude and longitude.

[emphasis in original]

... in all those pages you never did say what f() actually represents and why a direct proportion to latitude and longitude was implied, or why longitude was even needed, even though asked repeatedly. You simply stated that |v| was directly proportional to these terms, even though in the previous equation it clearly isn't, and longitude (a) doesn't even appear.

Maybe if you explained (concisely, please) what you think directly proportional means, first, we might get somewhere; it doesn't mean what you apparently think it does.

If the answer to that was lost in the acres of text blathering about hovering capacitors and other irrelevant stuff, please point it out.

Unfortunately, the original thread was in Q&A, and some mods occasionally get testy about discussions there, so I guess we might as well continue here or, if you prefer, you can start a new thread in an appropriate forum. If you do that, please post a link to the new thread in a reply here as a courtesy to those who follow later. Thanks!

I'm still waiting for a clear, direct, preferably concise, answer for this. I may be in for a long wait, but hope springs eternal.

So, looks like the main objection is that some folks believe that the atmosphere is somehow "glued" to the surface of the Earth and hence, anything in that atmosphere acts as if it is on the surface of the earth, even though it is in the air. 

That's interesting. 


" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

Sorry, but I'm just a little bit skeptical.  I thought of this.  I'm in a car, on the freeway doing 50 mph.  I toss a ball in the air, inside the car.  It falls straight down, into my hand.  Next time, I toss the ball out the window to another car, that has their window down and is just 10 feet away from my car.  The ball however, doesn't make it, unless I throw it with a lot of force.  So, in a "closed system," the ball travels with the car, whether it travels at 10 mph or 100 mph.  However, in an "open system," the ball rapidly decelerates and doesn't keep up with the car, unless it has another form of momentum.  So, we should assume that the people who are objecting, in general, believe that the earth and the sky represent a "closed system."  And, it would appear, that the force they attribute this "closure" to is "gravity" (which I think is basically,   another word for magic).   They claim to be "scientific," while I think they are really just superstitious. 

I think gravity is fantasy, because when I throw a paper airplane through the air, there's no force that seems to pull the plane down to the ground, other than it's own mass, which eventually overcomes the velocity, that I gave the plane when I transferred energy from my body, to the plane, by picking it up and throwing it, through the air, which also mass and hence, causes resistance, just like water does, when you try and move through it.  Only air isn't as dense as water, so it provides less resistance, than water does. 

So, looks like the main objection is that some folks believe that the atmosphere is somehow "glued" to the surface of the Earth and hence, anything in that atmosphere acts as if it is on the surface of the earth, even though it is in the air. 

That's interesting. 


" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

Sorry, but I'm just a little bit skeptical.  I thought of this.  I'm in a car, on the freeway doing 50 mph.  I toss a ball in the air, inside the car.  It falls straight down, into my hand.  Next time, I toss the ball out the window to another car, that has their window down and is just 10 feet away from my car.  The ball however, doesn't make it, unless I throw it with a lot of force.  So, in a "closed system," the ball travels with the car, whether it travels at 10 mph or 100 mph.  However, in an "open system," the ball rapidly decelerates and doesn't keep up with the car, unless it has another form of momentum.  So, we should assume that the people who are objecting, in general, believe that the earth and the sky represent a "closed system."  And, it would appear, that the force they attribute this "closure" to is "gravity" (which I think is basically,   another word for magic).   They claim to be "scientific," while I think they are really just superstitious. 

I think gravity is fantasy, because when I throw a paper airplane through the air, there's no force that seems to pull the plane down to the ground, other than it's own mass, which eventually overcomes the velocity, that I gave the plane when I transferred energy from my body, to the plane, by picking it up and throwing it, through the air, which also mass and hence, causes resistance, just like water does, when you try and move through it.  Only air isn't as dense as water, so it provides less resistance, than water does.

I think you answered your own question. The ball between cars example. If the air was moving at the same speed as the cars (50 mph tail wind), the ball would not be deflected. In your example, the air is moving at the speed of the Earth beneath the cars (no wind at all), so it is like throwing a ball into a 50 mph wind (created by the car's motion).

In the Earth example, the Earth is the car ("closed system") with the atmosphere moving with it like the air inside the cars above. When something is NOT moving with the Earth, it even heats/burns up like the SR-71 Blackbird (Mach 3) or meteors.

This all leads to the Coriolis Effect. The Earth spinning at different speeds at different latitudes causes ocean currents and with the associated different speeds of the atmosphere, hurricanes spinning in different directions above and below the equator.

There is no real explanation in the FE model especially what is so special about the equator on a disk. Look at a swimming pool that is stationary. Why would it have "ocean currents" in it if it (or something) is not moving?

Ocean currents are much more useful to discuss the OP and Coriolis Effect. If the oceans behaved like the OP says, then they would be "stationary" while the Earth spun beneath them washing over the Earth, right? What would keep them "stationary", year after year washing over the Earth? Wouldn't they sooner or later rotate with the Earth? Why would this not happen to the atmosphere?

So, looks like the main objection is that some folks believe that the atmosphere is somehow "glued" to the surface of the Earth and hence, anything in that atmosphere acts as if it is on the surface of the earth, even though it is in the air. 

That's interesting. 

<Picture of Will Ferrell as Ron Burgundy>
<Link to youtube video>

Sorry, but I'm just a little bit skeptical.  I thought of this.  I'm in a car, on the freeway doing 50 mph.  I toss a ball in the air, inside the car.  It falls straight down, into my hand.  Next time, I toss the ball out the window to another car, that has their window down and is just 10 feet away from my car.  The ball however, doesn't make it, unless I throw it with a lot of force.  So, in a "closed system," the ball travels with the car, whether it travels at 10 mph or 100 mph.  However, in an "open system," the ball rapidly decelerates and doesn't keep up with the car, unless it has another form of momentum.  So, we should assume that the people who are objecting, in general, believe that the earth and [atmosphere] represent a "closed system." 

Quote

OK so far.

And, it would appear, that the force they attribute this "closure" to is "gravity"

And friction, but why the quote marks?

(which I think is basically,   another word for magic). They claim to be "scientific," while I think they are really just superstitious. 

I think gravity is fantasy,

Thanks for sharing your opinions.

because when I throw a paper airplane through the air, there's no force that seems to pull the plane down to the ground, other than it's own mass,

Actually, its own weight, which is mass times the acceleration of... wait for it... gravity, and is the downward force you seem to think exists. Weight is a force, in case you forgot (or never knew). How does this observation support the notion that "gravity is fantasy", exactly?

which eventually overcomes the velocity, that I gave the plane when I transferred energy from my body, to the plane, by picking it up and throwing it,

Are you suggesting that mass overcomes velocity? Why do things like rocks and bowling balls accelerate (go faster and faster) when dropped, then?

through the air, which also mass and hence, causes resistance, just like water does, when you try and move through it.  Only air isn't as dense as water, so it provides less resistance, than water does.

Oh, it's not its mass that slows it down, then? It's air resistance (a.k.a. friction) that does. I'm not sure I see the point.

Why does velocity matter at all? [Hint: it's because the paper airplane moving through the air produces a small amount of lift, which is an upward force that's enough to counteract the small weight of the plane as long as its moving fast enough to produce sufficient lift (which is why you use things like paper, styrofoam, and balsa wood for toy gliders - to keep the mass, and thus, weight, low).]

This example does not support your opinion that "gravity is fantasy".

[Edit] Formatting.

Quote from: Marciano on January 09, 2016, 07:11:47 PM

I don't think The Earth is spinning.

It is. Coriolis effect. Done

You know I can never spell "Coriolis" correctly on my own.

So, looks like the main objection is that some folks believe that the atmosphere is somehow "glued" to the surface of the Earth and hence, anything in that atmosphere acts as if it is on the surface of the earth, even though it is in the air. 

That's interesting. 


" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

Sorry, but I'm just a little bit skeptical.  I thought of this.  I'm in a car, on the freeway doing 50 mph.  I toss a ball in the air, inside the car.  It falls straight down, into my hand.  Next time, I toss the ball out the window to another car, that has their window down and is just 10 feet away from my car.  The ball however, doesn't make it, unless I throw it with a lot of force.  So, in a "closed system," the ball travels with the car, whether it travels at 10 mph or 100 mph.  However, in an "open system," the ball rapidly decelerates and doesn't keep up with the car, unless it has another form of momentum.  So, we should assume that the people who are objecting, in general, believe that the earth and the sky represent a "closed system."  And, it would appear, that the force they attribute this "closure" to is "gravity" (which I think is basically,   another word for magic).   They claim to be "scientific," while I think they are really just superstitious. 

I think gravity is fantasy, because when I throw a paper airplane through the air, there's no force that seems to pull the plane down to the ground, other than it's own mass, which eventually overcomes the velocity, that I gave the plane when I transferred energy from my body, to the plane, by picking it up and throwing it, through the air, which also mass and hence, causes resistance, just like water does, when you try and move through it.  Only air isn't as dense as water, so it provides less resistance, than water does.

Don't get discouraged. You are doing fine. Believe in what you feel in your gut and all you have to do is use good old common sense.

You know I can never spell "Coriolis" correctly on my own.

It's phonetic. Cor-io-lis.

So, looks like the main objection is that some folks believe that the atmosphere is somehow "glued" to the surface of the Earth and hence, anything in that atmosphere acts as if it is on the surface of the earth, even though it is in the air. 

That's interesting. 


" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

Sorry, but I'm just a little bit skeptical.  I thought of this.  I'm in a car, on the freeway doing 50 mph.  I toss a ball in the air, inside the car.  It falls straight down, into my hand.  Next time, I toss the ball out the window to another car, that has their window down and is just 10 feet away from my car.  The ball however, doesn't make it, unless I throw it with a lot of force.  So, in a "closed system," the ball travels with the car, whether it travels at 10 mph or 100 mph.  However, in an "open system," the ball rapidly decelerates and doesn't keep up with the car, unless it has another form of momentum.  So, we should assume that the people who are objecting, in general, believe that the earth and the sky represent a "closed system."  And, it would appear, that the force they attribute this "closure" to is "gravity" (which I think is basically,   another word for magic).   They claim to be "scientific," while I think they are really just superstitious.

Try the same on a sailing boat open system, and tell us your results.

Quote from: Marciano on January 09, 2016, 07:11:47 PM

I don't think The Earth is spinning.

It is. Coriolis effect. Done

Don't snipers explain the Coriolis effect as once the bullet leaves the gun (or earth) it is traveling independently of earth? The earth is spinning under the bullet and correction need to be made to account for that?
Why wouldn't this effect airplanes the same way? How does that happening in a closed system? 

Quote from: Luke 22:35-38 on January 11, 2016, 08:22:25 AM

You know I can never spell "Coriolis" correctly on my own.

It's phonetic. Cor-io-lis.

Thanks.

Quote from: Kirk Johnson on January 09, 2016, 08:53:56 PM

Quote from: Marciano on January 09, 2016, 07:11:47 PM

I don't think The Earth is spinning.

It is. Coriolis effect. Done

Don't snipers explain the Coriolis effect as once the bullet leaves the gun (or earth) it is traveling independently of earth? The earth is spinning under the bullet and correction need to be made to account for that?
Why wouldn't this effect airplanes the same way? How does that happening in a closed system?

The aeroplane is flying "in" the air. Any headwinds, tailwinds or crosswinds will affect the flightpath.
The path of the bullet is almost (not quite) independent of the air. Of course strong winds still have some effect and for rifle bullets probably more important than Coriolis. The error caused by Coriolis is very small for rifle shooting - maybe not more than 5 cm at 1,000 m.
Coriolis becomes serious for long range artillery firing N->S or S->N.  The shell has the muzzle velocity including any west->east velocity of the earth. The target will move at different velocity from the gun, leading to a targetting error. This can be corrected by calculation (automatic with modern weapons) and/or having a spotter to correct the shot.
The important point to remember that Coriolis is due to the change in surface velocity of the earth as we move north or south.  Right on the Equator there is essentially no change, so no Coriolis, hence (almost) no cyclones or hurricanes in a band near the Equator.

I've said too much, hope it makes sense.

So, looks like the main objection is that some folks believe that the atmosphere is somehow "glued" to the surface of the Earth and hence, anything in that atmosphere acts as if it is on the surface of the earth, even though it is in the air. 

That's interesting. 


" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

Sorry, but I'm just a little bit skeptical.  I thought of this.  I'm in a car, on the freeway doing 50 mph.  I toss a ball in the air, inside the car.  It falls straight down, into my hand.  Next time, I toss the ball out the window to another car, that has their window down and is just 10 feet away from my car.  The ball however, doesn't make it, unless I throw it with a lot of force.  So, in a "closed system," the ball travels with the car, whether it travels at 10 mph or 100 mph.  However, in an "open system," the ball rapidly decelerates and doesn't keep up with the car, unless it has another form of momentum.  So, we should assume that the people who are objecting, in general, believe that the earth and the sky represent a "closed system."  And, it would appear, that the force they attribute this "closure" to is "gravity" (which I think is basically,   another word for magic).   They claim to be "scientific," while I think they are really just superstitious. 

I think gravity is fantasy, because when I throw a paper airplane through the air, there's no force that seems to pull the plane down to the ground, other than it's own mass, which eventually overcomes the velocity, that I gave the plane when I transferred energy from my body, to the plane, by picking it up and throwing it, through the air, which also mass and hence, causes resistance, just like water does, when you try and move through it.  Only air isn't as dense as water, so it provides less resistance, than water does.

hmmmmm.....  You're not here to mess around are you 

All the NASA shills in here should keep an eye on you   

I liked some of your posts, especially the ones that were encouraging or just plain funny. 

The ocean currents was one objection that I found interesting.  The movement of the water in the oceans has several causes.  No one really disputes that.  But, the belief that the force of the earth spinning causes an effect on oceans currents, yet doesn't just rip the water off the face of the Earth and we don't feel this effect that has the power to move oceans is pretty fantastic, given the fact that this same force is supposed to keep us from flying off the face of the earth, even though it is supposed to be spinning at the super fast speed of One Thousand Miles per hour. 

Oh and did I mention, we're all supposed to be able to walk around like spiderman!   

Secondly, the belief that the tides are caused by the magical pull of the sun and moon on the earth, again seems ridiculous.  The idea that tides are caused by other forces, like variations in air pressure and temperature, for example, seem much more reasonable, than invisible forces from a monster sun that's gazillions of miles away ripping on us, but just enough to cause a pleasant tide and no more than that. 

 

But, the belief that the force of the earth spinning causes an effect on oceans currents, yet doesn't just rip the water off the face of the Earth and we don't feel this effect that has the power to move oceans is pretty fantastic,

Why do you insist on coming up with this sort of thing that has been answered dozens of time?

You say "the power to move oceans is pretty fantastic".  Just remember that water is a liquid and a steady "force" applied for a long time can start it moving.  The Coriolis effect you allude to is just water from one latitude moving at a certain speed heading, say north, to a part of the earth that is moving at a different speed.  The water tries to keep going straight ahead (inertia), but the surface of the earth has moved.  Relative to the earth, the water has been deflected.

given the fact that this same force is supposed to keep us from flying off the face of the earth, even though it is supposed to be spinning at the super fast speed of One Thousand Miles per hour.

Wow, "spinning at the super fast speed of One Thousand Miles per hour"!  Looked at another way it is spinning at 0.00070 rpm - and you have the audacity to call that fast!

What on earth would cause us to be "flying off the face of the earth" - maybe crawling around at 0.00070 rpm!
Yes, actually both spinning at 1,000 mph and at 0.00070 rpm are quite misleading. 
Your 1,000 mph looks fast, but the earth is BIG, with a circumference of 24,901 miles.
But my 0.00070 rpm is also misleading for the same reason - the earth is big.

The important thing is how the radial acceleration caused by this spin compares with the g = 9.84 m/s² we expect.  The centripetal acceleration works out to be A_cent = 0.034 m/s².  So it's no that significant, though the change in the effective g from the equator to the poles can easily be measured.

Oh and did I mention, we're all supposed to be able to walk around like spiderman!   

Oh, get real!  Whyever "we're all supposed to be able to walk around like spiderman"?  Gravity holds us to the surface with a force of g x your mass = which we just call your weight.

Secondly, the belief that the tides are caused by the magical pull of the sun and moon on the earth, again seems ridiculous.  The idea that tides are caused by other forces, like variations in air pressure and temperature, for example, seem much more reasonable, than invisible forces from a monster sun that's gazillions of miles away ripping on us, but just enough to cause a pleasant tide and no more than that. 

Stop being stupid with intentionally emotive language like "monster sun that's gazillions of miles away ripping on us".

Look, I could spend lots of time on this, but while tides are slightly affected by air pressure (maybe half a metre at the most during a hurricane), there is no correlation of our normal tides with atmospheric pressure.

Yes, the sun is massive, but it's a long way away.  The sun's gravitational at the earth's surface is about half that of the moon, so the position of the moon and the sun both have a significant effect.

By the way, please tell me just why you find gravity any more magic than magnetic attraction - you can't SEE that, but you can see its effect, same with gravity.

What about electromagnetic propagation?  Some event happens in France and we get real time coverage in Australia, now that's magic! 

Why is gravity any more magic?  Actually, there is one reason - gravity is extremely weak.  Magnetic effects are strong enough for us to be able to do simple demonstrations anywhere.
But gravity is so weak that is not easily demonstrated in the lab.  It has been demonstrated in the lab numerous times, from Henry Cavendish to the present day, but it does require very careful work.  Even old Henry's result was only 1% away from present results (and work is still going on, no-one pretends it's all understood!).

I liked some of your posts, especially the ones that were encouraging or just plain funny. 

The ocean currents was one objection that I found interesting.  The movement of the water in the oceans has several causes.  No one really disputes that.  But, the belief that the force of the earth spinning causes an effect on oceans currents, yet doesn't just rip the water off the face of the Earth and we don't feel this effect that has the power to move oceans is pretty fantastic, given the fact that this same force is supposed to keep us from flying off the face of the earth, even though it is supposed to be spinning at the super fast speed of One Thousand Miles per hour. 

Oh and did I mention, we're all supposed to be able to walk around like spiderman!   

Secondly, the belief that the tides are caused by the magical pull of the sun and moon on the earth, again seems ridiculous.  The idea that tides are caused by other forces, like variations in air pressure and temperature, for example, seem much more reasonable, than invisible forces from a monster sun that's gazillions of miles away ripping on us, but just enough to cause a pleasant tide and no more than that. 

Cheap trolling. 1/10 tops.

Quote from: Marciano on January 12, 2016, 05:34:48 PM

But, the belief that the force of the earth spinning causes an effect on oceans currents, yet doesn't just rip the water off the face of the Earth and we don't feel this effect that has the power to move oceans is pretty fantastic,

Why do you insist on coming up with this sort of thing that has been answered dozens of time?

You say "the power to move oceans is pretty fantastic".  Just remember that water is a liquid and a steady "force" applied for a long time can start it moving.  The Coriolis effect you allude to is just water from one latitude moving at a certain speed heading, say north, to a part of the earth that is moving at a different speed.  The water tries to keep going straight ahead (inertia), but the surface of the earth has moved.  Relative to the earth, the water has been deflected.

Quote from: Marciano

given the fact that this same force is supposed to keep us from flying off the face of the earth, even though it is supposed to be spinning at the super fast speed of One Thousand Miles per hour.

Wow, "spinning at the super fast speed of One Thousand Miles per hour"!  Looked at another way it is spinning at 0.00070 rpm - and you have the audacity to call that fast!

What on earth would cause us to be "flying off the face of the earth" - maybe crawling around at 0.00070 rpm!
Yes, actually both spinning at 1,000 mph and at 0.00070 rpm are quite misleading. 
Your 1,000 mph looks fast, but the earth is BIG, with a circumference of 24,901 miles.
But my 0.00070 rpm is also misleading for the same reason - the earth is big.

The important thing is how the radial acceleration caused by this spin compares with the g = 9.84 m/s² we expect.  The centripetal acceleration works out to be A_cent = 0.034 m/s².  So it's no that significant, though the change in the effective g from the equator to the poles can easily be measured.

Quote from: Marciano

Oh and did I mention, we're all supposed to be able to walk around like spiderman!   

Oh, get real!  Whyever "we're all supposed to be able to walk around like spiderman"?  Gravity holds us to the surface with a force of g x your mass = which we just call your weight.

Quote from: Marciano

Secondly, the belief that the tides are caused by the magical pull of the sun and moon on the earth, again seems ridiculous.  The idea that tides are caused by other forces, like variations in air pressure and temperature, for example, seem much more reasonable, than invisible forces from a monster sun that's gazillions of miles away ripping on us, but just enough to cause a pleasant tide and no more than that. 

Stop being stupid with intentionally emotive language like "monster sun that's gazillions of miles away ripping on us".

Look, I could spend lots of time on this, but while tides are slightly affected by air pressure (maybe half a metre at the most during a hurricane), there is no correlation of our normal tides with atmospheric pressure.

Yes, the sun is massive, but it's a long way away.  The sun's gravitational at the earth's surface is about half that of the moon, so the position of the moon and the sun both have a significant effect.

By the way, please tell me just why you find gravity any more magic than magnetic attraction - you can't SEE that, but you can see its effect, same with gravity.

What about electromagnetic propagation?  Some event happens in France and we get real time coverage in Australia, now that's magic! 

Why is gravity any more magic?  Actually, there is one reason - gravity is extremely weak.  Magnetic effects are strong enough for us to be able to do simple demonstrations anywhere.
But gravity is so weak that is not easily demonstrated in the lab.  It has been demonstrated in the lab numerous times, from Henry Cavendish to the present day, but it does require very careful work.  Even old Henry's result was only 1% away from present results (and work is still going on, no-one pretends it's all understood!).

Traveling on a recreational speed boat vs a big cruise ship.  On the speed boat I feel the "bumps," but not so much on the cruise ship.  On the speed boat I am more aware of the speed on the deck, than in the cabin.  Of course, the same holds true for the cruise ship.  Now, if I were deep inside the cruise ship, fine, but I'm sort of "on deck" in my backyard and I sense no movement, just a pleasant breeze. 

So, walking upside down is supposed to be "no big deal."  Are you kidding? 

I don't think I'm exaggerating when I say, the sun, in your model is incredibly, monstrously, gargantuan, hyper-gigantically humongous!  And that you claim it is literally reaching out, over incredibly, mind boggling, fantastically vast distances of black nothingness, to tug on 510 million square kilometers of water, and it does this all like clock work.  You should stop and think about that sometime. 



I have magnets on my refrigerator and while I'll admit, the top of it does seem to attract dust, it does this no more so than the same area of floor does.  I'm sorry your theory of gravity seems to be impossible to prove.  Maybe that should tell you something? 



" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">
David Bowie sends Major Tom to outer space and discovers girls!   

Maybe all this space jazz is really just about rationalizing bad behavior.  Major Tom seems to be more interested in cheating on his wife, than on exploring "outer space."

You know, outer space is like that place where all the natural rules that we live by no longer apply. 

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">
Cole Porter, anything goes   

You know, outer space is like that place where all the natural rules that we live by no longer apply. 

Believe the earth is flat by all means, but don't use this as an excuse to rubbish what you don't understand!
"All the natural rules that we live" still apply in outer space.
Newton's 3 laws.
Gravitational attraction = ^(Gm₁m₂)/_d²
The "G" in this expression is very small (6.67408×10^-11 m³ kg^-1 s^-2).
You can pretty all this up with General Relativity, but it's simply not necessary for this level of discussion of the solar system.

These Laws explain almost all that you are questioning.
Yes, the Sun's size and mass are gargantuan (1.989 × 10³⁰ kg), but it is a long, long away (149,000,000 km), so the "d" in the gravitation expression is huge.

So, don't be tempted to look at one bit and say that looks ridiculous!  Even when it comes to the tiny gravitational effect of the moon on the earth (you don't weigh a measurable amount more with the moon overhead), the oceans have a huge mass and not much force is needed to move the water around the earth a bit, giving us tides - the wind does it a bit!

I won't go into any more detail, but it does all tie together, but you can't pick and choose the laws.

Marciano, um, how do you know the FE model is facing "up" holding the people and water on it?

Why isn't it facing "down" with all the people and water falling off of it?

If RET gravity is pulling everything toward the center of the Earth, there is no "up" or "down", just "in" and "out".

If UA is "pushing" everything "up", then why can't gravity "pull" everything "down" to the center of the Earth?

Jeez, people are silly.

So, walking upside down is supposed to be "no big deal."  Are you kidding? 

There is no such thing as an objective "up" or "down."  Directions are axiomatically relative.

Nobody who walks on the surface of a globe is walking "upside down." 

I don't think I'm exaggerating when I say, the sun, in your model is incredibly, monstrously, gargantuan, hyper-gigantically humongous!  And that you claim it is literally reaching out, over incredibly, mind boggling, fantastically vast distances of black nothingness, to tug on 510 million square kilometers of water, and it does this all like clock work.  You should stop and think about that sometime. 

I don't think I'm exaggerating when I say, the earth, in your model is incredibly, monstrously, gargantuan, hyper-gigantically humongous!
Because when one take scaled model of the Sun and the Earth, the roles switch. Sun is of a pixel size vs the flat Earth sufrace, which is at least 400 pixels in diameter. And that you claim it is literally reaching out, over incredibly, mind boggling, fantastically vast distances of black nothingness, to tug on 510 million square kilometers of water, and it does this all like clock work.  You should stop and think about that sometime. 

Quote from: Marciano on January 13, 2016, 11:49:35 AM

So, walking upside down is supposed to be "no big deal."  Are you kidding? 

There is no such thing as an objective "up" or "down."  Directions are axiomatically relative.

Nobody who walks on the surface of a globe is walking "upside down."

Proving my point:  belief in ball earth requires one to sacrifice their common sense.