Watch this video and listen to simple undeniable logic.

I realize that everyone here is simply reciting what they were taught in school. That is obvious because I was taught the same things. The difference between you and me is I'm not closed to looking at other possibilities. I know it will be  painful when you come to realize that what you were taught is not necessarily the truth and other possibilities can exist. There is no proof the earth is spinning. "Airy's Failure" experiment has merit that the earth may not be spinning. No one knows if space is a vacuum. Dayton Miller's experiments produced positive results that show there could be an aether in space and not a vacuum. There have been experiments that I've seen could prove the earth may be flat. I don't know the answers. All I can do is weigh the possibilities and decide what sounds best to me. If you all want to cling to the same old notions then be my guest. Don't include me in this because I want to spread my wings and fly.

If you all want to cling to the same old notions then be my guest. Don't include me in this because I want to spread my wings and fly.

Quote from: rabinoz on May 08, 2016, 05:35:28 AM

Quote from: Yendor on May 06, 2016, 12:41:42 PM

Quote from: 29silhouette on May 06, 2016, 10:09:30 AM

There was nothing "to the point" about that video (at least in the few minutes I watched).  I'm not sure what is so complicated about water being attracted to the surface of a sphere.

Yes, water always finds its own level.

But there is simply no physical law that says that level is a straight line. It is easy to make water deviate from a straight line.
One way is to put it into tank and spin the tank smoothly, as in this video " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Centrifugal Force on Rotating Water Container.

Of course you will say that the water in that tank is not only subject to the downward acceleration of gravity (or whatever you choose to call it), but to an additional "centripetal acceleration" due the roation. EXACTLY! The nett acceleration is not in a single direction anymore and the surface aligns itself at right angles to this nett acceleration at each location, as illustrated below:

Rotating Water Curving

This is essentially what we get on the globe. The nett acceleration in this case is just the local acceleration due to gravity and is directed (almost^[1]) to the centre of the earth as in this rather rough illustration:

Water Curves on Globe

In this case the surface of the water is always at right angles to the direction we call "down", in other words it is "level" or "horizontal", so the water still "finds its own level" alright, but that level is not a perfectly straight line. Though on a local scale it is so close to a straight like as to not matter.

Over a distance of one mile the surface of perfectly still water would deviate only a total of 2 inches from level (±1" if you like) as in:

Water nearly Flat on Globe

[1] Almost towards the centre because the centripetal acceleration caused by the rotation of the earth causes a slight deviation.

Perfect. Have you noticed the whirl in the middle? So,

Where is the whirl on the North Pole?

 

_{Why would there be a whirl on the North Pole?} 

• "if only we could explain sunrises and sunsets"
• "if only we could explain the directions of sunrise and sunset"
• "if only we could explain Southern Circumpolar Stars"
• "if only we could even explain logically the phases of the moon^[1]"
• "if only we could explain logically solar and lunar eclipses"
• "if only we could explain apparent planetary retrograde motion"
• "if only we could explain gravity variations"
• "if only we could explain how the sun and moon stay the same size from rising to setting"
• "if only we had a map"

Quote from: Humble_Scientist on May 08, 2016, 06:08:57 AM

Quote from: rabinoz on May 08, 2016, 05:35:28 AM

Quote from: Yendor on May 06, 2016, 12:41:42 PM

Quote from: 29silhouette on May 06, 2016, 10:09:30 AM

There was nothing "to the point" about that video (at least in the few minutes I watched).  I'm not sure what is so complicated about water being attracted to the surface of a sphere.

Yes, water always finds its own level.

But there is simply no physical law that says that level is a straight line. It is easy to make water deviate from a straight line.
One way is to put it into tank and spin the tank smoothly, as in this video " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Centrifugal Force on Rotating Water Container.

Of course you will say that the water in that tank is not only subject to the downward acceleration of gravity (or whatever you choose to call it), but to an additional "centripetal acceleration" due the roation. EXACTLY! The nett acceleration is not in a single direction anymore and the surface aligns itself at right angles to this nett acceleration at each location, as illustrated below:

Rotating Water Curving

This is essentially what we get on the globe. The nett acceleration in this case is just the local acceleration due to gravity and is directed (almost^[1]) to the centre of the earth as in this rather rough illustration:

Water Curves on Globe

In this case the surface of the water is always at right angles to the direction we call "down", in other words it is "level" or "horizontal", so the water still "finds its own level" alright, but that level is not a perfectly straight line. Though on a local scale it is so close to a straight like as to not matter.

Over a distance of one mile the surface of perfectly still water would deviate only a total of 2 inches from level (±1" if you like) as in:

Water nearly Flat on Globe

[1] Almost towards the centre because the centripetal acceleration caused by the rotation of the earth causes a slight deviation.

Perfect. Have you noticed the whirl in the middle? So,

Where is the whirl on the North Pole?

 

I honestly have no idea what you are talking about!

_{Why would there be a whirl on the North Pole?} 

I never anywhere said that the water "curving around the earth" was due to rotation. I only brought the spinning tank in as counter to Yendor's claim that the water surface is always straight - it simply is NOT always straight and the "spinning tank proves it".

The surface of water simply conforms to the local forces applied to it be they inertial (as in accelerating, including rotating), pressure (as differing air pressure - storm surges) or gravitational (as on the Globe Earth).

It's always "I don't understand the Globe, that proves the earth is Flat!"

Well no it doesn't, all it does is prove that you don't understand the Globe!

Yet, most Flat Earthers simply cannot explain so many things on their "own earth model".

The Society should be renamed the It could be a Flat Earth Society:

• "if only we could explain sunrises and sunsets"
• "if only we could explain the directions of sunrise and sunset"
• "if only we could explain Southern Circumpolar Stars"
• "if only we could even explain logically the phases of the moon^[1]"
• "if only we could explain logically solar and lunar eclipses"
• "if only we could explain apparent planetary retrograde motion"
• "if only we could explain gravity variations"
• "if only we could explain how the sun and moon stay the same size from rising to setting"
• "if only we had a map"

Of course the Society claims explanations for most these, but they all seem to involve magic curvy light, unreal perspective and other guesswork. When you get down to the nitty all there explanations leave more questions than answers.

[1] Without dragging in imaginary bio-luminescent "moon shrimp", or whatever they are called today!

_{Why would there be a whirl on the North Pole?}[/u] 

Quote from: rabinoz on May 08, 2016, 07:26:03 PM

Quote from: Humble_Scientist on May 08, 2016, 06:08:57 AM

Quote from: rabinoz on May 08, 2016, 05:35:28 AM

Quote from: Yendor on May 06, 2016, 12:41:42 PM

Quote from: 29silhouette on May 06, 2016, 10:09:30 AM

There was nothing "to the point" about that video (at least in the few minutes I watched).  I'm not sure what is so complicated about water being attracted to the surface of a sphere.

Yes, water always finds its own level.

But there is simply no physical law that says that level is a straight line. It is easy to make water deviate from a straight line.
One way is to put it into tank and spin the tank smoothly, as in this video " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Centrifugal Force on Rotating Water Container.

Of course you will say that the water in that tank is not only subject to the downward acceleration of gravity (or whatever you choose to call it), but to an additional "centripetal acceleration" due the roation. EXACTLY! The nett acceleration is not in a single direction anymore and the surface aligns itself at right angles to this nett acceleration at each location, as illustrated below:

Rotating Water Curving

This is essentially what we get on the globe. The nett acceleration in this case is just the local acceleration due to gravity and is directed (almost^[1]) to the centre of the earth as in this rather rough illustration:

Water Curves on Globe

In this case the surface of the water is always at right angles to the direction we call "down", in other words it is "level" or "horizontal", so the water still "finds its own level" alright, but that level is not a perfectly straight line. Though on a local scale it is so close to a straight like as to not matter.

Over a distance of one mile the surface of perfectly still water would deviate only a total of 2 inches from level (±1" if you like) as in:

Water nearly Flat on Globe

[1] Almost towards the centre because the centripetal acceleration caused by the rotation of the earth causes a slight deviation.

Perfect. Have you noticed the whirl in the middle? So,

Where is the whirl on the North Pole?

 

I honestly have no idea what you are talking about!

_{Why would there be a whirl on the North Pole?} 

I never anywhere said that the water "curving around the earth" was due to rotation. I only brought the spinning tank in as counter to Yendor's claim that the water surface is always straight - it simply is NOT always straight and the "spinning tank proves it".

The surface of water simply conforms to the local forces applied to it be they inertial (as in accelerating, including rotating), pressure (as differing air pressure - storm surges) or gravitational (as on the Globe Earth).

It's always "I don't understand the Globe, that proves the earth is Flat!"

Well no it doesn't, all it does is prove that you don't understand the Globe!

Yet, most Flat Earthers simply cannot explain so many things on their "own earth model".

The Society should be renamed the It could be a Flat Earth Society:

• "if only we could explain sunrises and sunsets"
• "if only we could explain the directions of sunrise and sunset"
• "if only we could explain Southern Circumpolar Stars"
• "if only we could even explain logically the phases of the moon^[1]"
• "if only we could explain logically solar and lunar eclipses"
• "if only we could explain apparent planetary retrograde motion"
• "if only we could explain gravity variations"
• "if only we could explain how the sun and moon stay the same size from rising to setting"
• "if only we had a map"

Of course the Society claims explanations for most these, but they all seem to involve magic curvy light, unreal perspective and other guesswork. When you get down to the nitty all there explanations leave more questions than answers.

[1] Without dragging in imaginary bio-luminescent "moon shrimp", or whatever they are called today!

"I honestly have no idea what you are talking about!

_{Why would there be a whirl on the North Pole?}[/u] 

"

Not only the whirl of water, but the whirl of air and the whirl of hot magma under the crust. Look at the picture you've so kindly provided. Haven't you noticed the ditch in the middle of the water? What is its nature, how do you think?
 

"Without dragging in imaginary bio-luminescent "moon shrimp", or whatever they are called today!"
<yawn> What a kindergarten... Remember, NASA must have already grown that basil etc. on the Moon's surface:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=66674.0

Now the "bio-luminescent "moon shrimp", or whatever they are called today" have some food. Easy-peasy. The call it a food chain...
 

To you 1,000 mph looks fast, but the earth is huge, and rotates only once in about 23.93 hours - that's not fast.

Quote from: rabinoz on May 10, 2016, 04:05:00 AM

To you 1,000 mph looks fast, but the earth is huge, and rotates only once in about 23.93 hours - that's not fast.

And a tennis ball rotating once in about 29.93 hours - that's not fast.
And if the earth was 10 times as big and rotates once in about 23.93 hours - that's not fast.
You can not go fast.

Quote from: tappet on May 10, 2016, 04:31:51 AM

Quote from: rabinoz on May 10, 2016, 04:05:00 AM

To you 1,000 mph looks fast, but the earth is huge, and rotates only once in about 23.93 hours - that's not fast.

And a tennis ball rotating once in about 29.93 hours - that's not fast.
And if the earth was 10 times as big and rotates once in about 23.93 hours - that's not fast.
You can not go fast.

You can go fast. Rotate the earth at 1 rpm. That's fast. Rotating once per 23.93 hours is not fast. It's so little our brains can't even comprehend it. Why would the size matter? RPM is RPM. If a car goes at 1km/h that's not fast, neither is a tennis ball going that fast. Or a human.

Quote from: tappet on May 10, 2016, 04:31:51 AM

Quote from: rabinoz on May 10, 2016, 04:05:00 AM

To you 1,000 mph looks fast, but the earth is huge, and rotates only once in about 23.93 hours - that's not fast.

And a tennis ball rotating once in about 29.93 hours - that's not fast.
And if the earth was 10 times as big and rotates once in about 23.93 hours - that's not fast.
You can not go fast.

You can go fast. Rotate the earth at 1 rpm. That's fast. Rotating once per 23.93 hours is not fast. It's so little our brains can't even comprehend it. Why would the size matter? RPM is RPM. If a car goes at 1km/h that's not fast, neither is a tennis ball going that fast. Or a human.

Water finds a level and a level is flat. It is not and never will be, curved.

So, really where are your massive swirls going to come from.

To you 1,000 mph looks fast, but the earth is huge, and rotates only once in about 23.93 hours - that's not fast.

Go learn a bit about the globe. For a "Humble Scientist" you seem to understand zilch now!

Quote from: rabinoz on May 10, 2016, 04:05:00 AM

So, really where are your massive swirls going to come from.

To you 1,000 mph looks fast, but the earth is huge, and rotates only once in about 23.93 hours - that's not fast.

Go learn a bit about the globe. For a "Humble Scientist" you seem to understand zilch now!

 

Relax, buddy, you are too emotional again. It's very simple. For a moment, let's imagine (if you can) the weirdest, wildest, most impossible perversion: spinning round Earth. It has its atmosphere, water and magma under the crust. I'll explain you for the air, you could do the rest.

So, in round numbers, at the equator: radius 6,000,000 m, circumference 40,000,000 m, spins every 24 h.

Linear velocity: 40,000,000/(24*60*60) = 463 m/s
Angular velocity: 1/(24*60*60) = 1/86400 s^(-1)
Acceleration: (1/86400)^2*6,000,000 = 0,8 mm/s^(-2), or 0.00008 g.

The air layer at the equator, due to molecular friction, passes some of its kinetic energy to the adjacent layers, and so on. Let's suppose that the air at the North pole receives only 1% of that equatorial kinetic energy:

E(np) = 0.01* E(e)
mV(np)^2/2 = 0.01 mV(e)^2/2
V(np)^2 = 0.01 V(e)^2
V(np) = 0.1 V(e), or 46.3 m/s

So, the air at the North Pole would have linear velocity of 46.3 m/s.

Say, at a distance of 1 km from the pole:

Radius = 1,000 m
Circumference = 6,280 m
Linear velocity = 46.3 m/s
Angular velocity = 46.3 m/s : 6,280 m = 0.0074 s^(-1)
Acceleration = 0.0055 g.

At 100 m from the pole:
Radius = 100 m
Circumference = 628 m
Linear velocity = 46.3 m/s
Angular velocity = 0.074 s^(-1)
Acceleration = 0.055 g

At 10 m from the pole:
Radius = 10 m
Circumference = 62,8 m
Linear velocity = 46.3 m/s
Angular velocity = 0.74 s^(-1)
Acceleration = 0.55 g

At 1 m from the pole:
Radius = 1 m
Circumference = 6,28 m
Linear velocity = 46.3 m/s
Angular velocity = 7.4 s^(-1)
Acceleration = 5.5 g

At 10 cm from the pole:
Radius = 0.1 m
Circumference = 0.628 m
Linear velocity = 46.3 m/s
Angular velocity = 74 s^(-1)
Acceleration = 55 g

Such a whirl is called simply: TORNADO. And this is exactly how it's being formed. Of course, the linear velocity would drop a bit, and at 10 cm from the pole we would observe vacuum, and a very good suction - even at 1 m, but, essentially, that's what gonna happen: permanent tornado.

Now imagine a similar whirl of water.

And a similar whirl of hot molten magma.

And all these together...

By the way, where are they? Do we observe such a magnificent event?

No.

Why?

I'll whisper this secret info, only for your ear, bro':

Because Earth is not rotating...

and Earth is flat.

 

Your calculations are wrong.  Try again 0/10

Quote from: Rayzor on May 10, 2016, 04:54:17 PM

Your calculations are wrong.  Try again 0/10

Yeah, yeah... I was waiting for such a reply. Feel free to multiply *6.28 you know where, dear Rayzor...
 

In this thread we learn who is smart enough to comprehend RPM and the associated speed of something depending on the size.

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 10, 2016, 07:08:15 AM

Water finds a level and a level is flat. It is not and never will be, curved.

Therein lies your problem,  level and flat are two completely different things.  Until you grasp that simple fact you will never understand.

Quote from: Rayzor on May 10, 2016, 04:31:32 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 10, 2016, 07:08:15 AM

Water finds a level and a level is flat. It is not and never will be, curved.

Therein lies your problem,  level and flat are two completely different things.  Until you grasp that simple fact you will never understand.

In simple logical terms, you explain to me how level and flat are different. Don't bother coming out with pathetic scientific jargon that some tefal head invented.

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 11, 2016, 12:41:44 AM

Quote from: Rayzor on May 10, 2016, 04:31:32 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 10, 2016, 07:08:15 AM

Water finds a level and a level is flat. It is not and never will be, curved.

Therein lies your problem,  level and flat are two completely different things.  Until you grasp that simple fact you will never understand.

In simple logical terms, you explain to me how level and flat are different. Don't bother coming out with pathetic scientific jargon that some tefal head invented.

You kitchen table is probably fairly flat,   ( probably within a 1/4 inch or so )  now,  that's what we will call flat.    Pay attention,  pick up one end of the table and flip it so your kitchen table is  standing vertically  against the wall,  that's not level is it?...  but the table top is still flat.    So you now understand that flat and level are two totally different things.

I know I've said this before but "tefal head" is not something that makes any sense to anyone outside the UK.

"tefal head" is not something that makes any sense to anyone outside the UK.

Quote from: Humble_Scientist on May 10, 2016, 05:10:03 PM

Quote from: Rayzor on May 10, 2016, 04:54:17 PM

Your calculations are wrong.  Try again 0/10

Yeah, yeah... I was waiting for such a reply. Feel free to multiply *6.28 you know where, dear Rayzor...
 

Did you know there is actually a Tau day?     Guess the date....   June 28th naturally...

BTW,  here is a question for you,  why do weather patterns revolve in different directions either side of the equator.

Did you know there is actually a Tau day?     Guess the date....   June 28th naturally...

BTW,  here is a question for you,  why do weather patterns revolve in different directions either side of the equator.

Quote from: Rayzor on May 11, 2016, 05:03:42 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 11, 2016, 12:41:44 AM

Quote from: Rayzor on May 10, 2016, 04:31:32 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 10, 2016, 07:08:15 AM

Water finds a level and a level is flat. It is not and never will be, curved.

Therein lies your problem,  level and flat are two completely different things.  Until you grasp that simple fact you will never understand.

In simple logical terms, you explain to me how level and flat are different. Don't bother coming out with pathetic scientific jargon that some tefal head invented.

You kitchen table is probably fairly flat,   ( probably within a 1/4 inch or so )  now,  that's what we will call flat.    Pay attention,  pick up one end of the table and flip it so your kitchen table is  standing vertically  against the wall,  that's not level is it?...  but the table top is still flat.    So you now understand that flat and level are two totally different things.

I know I've said this before but "tefal head" is not something that makes any sense to anyone outside the UK.

I was perfectly right the first time. Flat is level. You tipping a table up vertically does not constitute flat or level.

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 11, 2016, 06:46:22 AM

Quote from: Rayzor on May 11, 2016, 05:03:42 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 11, 2016, 12:41:44 AM

Quote from: Rayzor on May 10, 2016, 04:31:32 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 10, 2016, 07:08:15 AM

Water finds a level and a level is flat. It is not and never will be, curved.

Therein lies your problem,  level and flat are two completely different things.  Until you grasp that simple fact you will never understand.

In simple logical terms, you explain to me how level and flat are different. Don't bother coming out with pathetic scientific jargon that some tefal head invented.

You kitchen table is probably fairly flat,   ( probably within a 1/4 inch or so )  now,  that's what we will call flat.    Pay attention,  pick up one end of the table and flip it so your kitchen table is  standing vertically  against the wall,  that's not level is it?...  but the table top is still flat.    So you now understand that flat and level are two totally different things.

I know I've said this before but "tefal head" is not something that makes any sense to anyone outside the UK.

I was perfectly right the first time. Flat is level. You tipping a table up vertically does not constitute flat or level.

Flat is flat,   level is level,   you can be flat AND level,  or you can level and NOT flat,  or you can be flat and NOT level.   Simple.

But if you don't "get it" now,  then you never will.   You are the tefal head.

Why are you such a mad retard?  I am saying this because I am awaiting my ban, so I can speak freely for a short time.  I know your are T****, but why are you more retarded than you where before?  You will likely post this in the forums where people care, but I will have you know that I am already under investigation.

Flat is flat,   level is level,   you can be flat AND level,  or you can level and NOT flat,  or you can be flat and NOT level.   Simple.
But if you don't "get it" now,  then you never will.

Quote from: jroa on May 11, 2016, 09:38:16 PM

Why are you such a mad retard?

I try harder,  what's your excuse?

Good to know I'm not the only currently drunk member on here.

Quote from: Master_Evar on May 10, 2016, 05:48:41 AM

Quote from: tappet on May 10, 2016, 04:31:51 AM

Quote from: rabinoz on May 10, 2016, 04:05:00 AM

To you 1,000 mph looks fast, but the earth is huge, and rotates only once in about 23.93 hours - that's not fast.

And a tennis ball rotating once in about 29.93 hours - that's not fast.
And if the earth was 10 times as big and rotates once in about 23.93 hours - that's not fast.
You can not go fast.

You can go fast. Rotate the earth at 1 rpm. That's fast. Rotating once per 23.93 hours is not fast. It's so little our brains can't even comprehend it. Why would the size matter? RPM is RPM. If a car goes at 1km/h that's not fast, neither is a tennis ball going that fast. Or a human.

You are right, math is math is math and I am not very good at it.
So if the earth was 10 times as big and rotates once in 29.93 hours how fast do you think it would be spinning at the equator, in MPH?