Water always finds its level

Why do you keep trying to bring acceleration into the debate?
I am talking about doing a left hand turn at a constant speed of 1,600 kph.

I don't think you have a clear idea of what acceleration is, or that speed is a vector or how to work with vectors

Ok, you didn't say centrifugal force throws me back in my drag car seat. Sorry.
But you are right I am a liar, I have admitted it on this very forum in the past.
That does not change the fact you are living on a round ball fantasy.

Let's go through this again. Velocity. Velocity means that you are moving at a certain speed, in a certain direction. If you change either your speed or direction, you are accelerating. For speed it's obvious. For direction:

That V with a triangle in front is added speed. As you can see, it is mostly sideways, but also a bit back. So it slows you down just a little,at the same time as it speeds you up sideways. in the end, you will be moving at the same speed as earlier, but your direction will have changed.

You with me so far?

Quote from: tappet on May 22, 2016, 11:15:31 PM

Why do you keep trying to bring acceleration into the debate?
I am talking about doing a left hand turn at a constant speed of 1,600 kph.

I don't think you have a clear idea of what acceleration is, or that speed is a vector or how to work with vectors

Shit, no one has said that to me in this thread yet. Oh no I have lied again.
I get it now. 1600 kph is very slow that is why if a tennis ball rotates once in 24 hours you will not fall off even if you stick your hand in water and pull it out some will be stuck to the underside even though if I turn left at 1,600 kph I will not feel any centrifugal force because I am going in a straight line.

Quote from: tappet on May 23, 2016, 02:09:21 AM

Ok, you didn't say centrifugal force throws me back in my drag car seat. Sorry.
But you are right I am a liar, I have admitted it on this very forum in the past.
That does not change the fact you are living on a round ball fantasy.

Let's go through this again. Velocity. Velocity means that you are moving at a certain speed, in a certain direction. If you change either your speed or direction, you are accelerating. For speed it's obvious. For direction:

That V with a triangle in front is added speed. As you can see, it is mostly sideways, but also a bit back. So it slows you down just a little,at the same time as it speeds you up sideways. in the end, you will be moving at the same speed as earlier, but your direction will have changed.

You with me so far?

You don't get it do you?
I am not on a ball, you are.
You can make a formula to fit anything.

OK done,

For an object with a mass of 1Kg at a latitude on earth that gives 1kph rotational speed, the centripetal force is approximately .0000202 N (point zero zero zero zero two zero two)

The latitude at this point is approximately 89.96569115 degrees and the slice through the earth at that latitude has a radius of approximately 3814.97 meters.

OK done,

For an object with a mass of 1Kg at a latitude on earth that gives 1kph rotational speed, the centripetal force is approximately .0000202 N (point zero zero zero zero two zero two)

The latitude at this point is approximately 89.96569115 degrees and the slice through the earth at that latitude has a radius of approximately 3814.97 meters.

Well done!

Quote from: Master_Evar on May 23, 2016, 02:23:23 AM

Quote from: tappet on May 23, 2016, 02:09:21 AM

Ok, you didn't say centrifugal force throws me back in my drag car seat. Sorry.
But you are right I am a liar, I have admitted it on this very forum in the past.
That does not change the fact you are living on a round ball fantasy.

Let's go through this again. Velocity. Velocity means that you are moving at a certain speed, in a certain direction. If you change either your speed or direction, you are accelerating. For speed it's obvious. For direction:

That V with a triangle in front is added speed. As you can see, it is mostly sideways, but also a bit back. So it slows you down just a little,at the same time as it speeds you up sideways. in the end, you will be moving at the same speed as earlier, but your direction will have changed.

You with me so far?

You don't get it do you?
I am not on a ball, you are.
You can make a formula to fit anything.

*sigh*

No, you can't make a formula fit anything. You can find a formula for almost everything, but you can't make it work for everything else. And exactly HOW do you expect to prove a point without providing neither calculations or evidence etc.?

Quote from: tappet on May 23, 2016, 02:37:58 AM

Quote from: Master_Evar on May 23, 2016, 02:23:23 AM

Quote from: tappet on May 23, 2016, 02:09:21 AM

Ok, you didn't say centrifugal force throws me back in my drag car seat. Sorry.
But you are right I am a liar, I have admitted it on this very forum in the past.
That does not change the fact you are living on a round ball fantasy.

Let's go through this again. Velocity. Velocity means that you are moving at a certain speed, in a certain direction. If you change either your speed or direction, you are accelerating. For speed it's obvious. For direction:

That V with a triangle in front is added speed. As you can see, it is mostly sideways, but also a bit back. So it slows you down just a little,at the same time as it speeds you up sideways. in the end, you will be moving at the same speed as earlier, but your direction will have changed.

You with me so far?

You don't get it do you?
I am not on a ball, you are.
You can make a formula to fit anything.

*sigh*

No, you can't make a formula fit anything. You can find a formula for almost everything, but you can't make it work for everything else. And exactly HOW do you expect to prove a point without providing neither calculations or evidence etc.?

All formula's have to be made up. They were not here before us.
Or were they?

You can make a formula to fit anything.

It's the same formula whether its applied to a golf ball or a planet, no one is "making a formula to fit anything"

Quote from: Master_Evar on May 23, 2016, 02:41:37 AM

Quote from: tappet on May 23, 2016, 02:37:58 AM

Quote from: Master_Evar on May 23, 2016, 02:23:23 AM

Quote from: tappet on May 23, 2016, 02:09:21 AM

Ok, you didn't say centrifugal force throws me back in my drag car seat. Sorry.
But you are right I am a liar, I have admitted it on this very forum in the past.
That does not change the fact you are living on a round ball fantasy.

Let's go through this again. Velocity. Velocity means that you are moving at a certain speed, in a certain direction. If you change either your speed or direction, you are accelerating. For speed it's obvious. For direction:

That V with a triangle in front is added speed. As you can see, it is mostly sideways, but also a bit back. So it slows you down just a little,at the same time as it speeds you up sideways. in the end, you will be moving at the same speed as earlier, but your direction will have changed.

You with me so far?

You don't get it do you?
I am not on a ball, you are.
You can make a formula to fit anything.

*sigh*

No, you can't make a formula fit anything. You can find a formula for almost everything, but you can't make it work for everything else. And exactly HOW do you expect to prove a point without providing neither calculations or evidence etc.?

All formula's have to be made up. They were not here before us.
Or were they?

The relationships a formula describes were in fact, here before us, man just gets to discover and describe those relationships. Many times we're right, sometimes we're wrong, and most times we're just making them more accurate.

Quote from: tappet on May 23, 2016, 02:37:58 AM

You can make a formula to fit anything.

It's the same formula whether its applied to a golf ball or a planet, no one is "making a formula to fit anything"

Of coarse its the same formula, somebody did have to make it but that does not prove the earth is round.
Its just a formula.

Quote from: SkepticMike on May 23, 2016, 02:48:06 AM

Quote from: tappet on May 23, 2016, 02:37:58 AM

You can make a formula to fit anything.

It's the same formula whether its applied to a golf ball or a planet, no one is "making a formula to fit anything"

Of coarse its the same formula, somebody did have to make it but that does not prove the earth is round.
Its just a formula.

No formula proves anything, it's just a description. When that description coincides with all tests you apply that formula to and predicts results you actually get in real world measurements, it's fairly safe to assume your formula is the best current description of how something actually is. The very first time someone uses a formula correctly and the predictions don't match up to verified real world measurements then it's time to revise the formula.

if I turn left at 1,600 kph I will not feel any centrifugal force because I am going in a straight line.

You will feel centrifugal force proportionate to your speed and how much you are changing direction.

Geez man, imagine a F-22 travelling at 1600kph taking a 40 075 km circle. How much centrifugal force would you feel?

At least put some thought into it.

Quote from: Master_Evar on May 23, 2016, 02:41:37 AM

Quote from: tappet on May 23, 2016, 02:37:58 AM

Quote from: Master_Evar on May 23, 2016, 02:23:23 AM

Quote from: tappet on May 23, 2016, 02:09:21 AM

Ok, you didn't say centrifugal force throws me back in my drag car seat. Sorry.
But you are right I am a liar, I have admitted it on this very forum in the past.
That does not change the fact you are living on a round ball fantasy.

Let's go through this again. Velocity. Velocity means that you are moving at a certain speed, in a certain direction. If you change either your speed or direction, you are accelerating. For speed it's obvious. For direction:

That V with a triangle in front is added speed. As you can see, it is mostly sideways, but also a bit back. So it slows you down just a little,at the same time as it speeds you up sideways. in the end, you will be moving at the same speed as earlier, but your direction will have changed.

You with me so far?

You don't get it do you?
I am not on a ball, you are.
You can make a formula to fit anything.

*sigh*

No, you can't make a formula fit anything. You can find a formula for almost everything, but you can't make it work for everything else. And exactly HOW do you expect to prove a point without providing neither calculations or evidence etc.?

All formula's have to be made up. They were not here before us.
Or were they?

Well, the formulas in written form/any other physical form? No. The formulas as universal laws? Yes, they were here loong before us. If long before us a 1 kg rock was subjected to a force of 1N, it would accelerate at 1m/s even though Newton hadn't written down his formula. The universe does not care what we discover/write down/say is true.

Velocity means that you are moving at a certain speed, in a certain direction. If you change either your speed or direction, you are accelerating.

You with me so far?

So, If you change your speed to slower, you are accelerating?

Quote from: Master_Evar on May 23, 2016, 02:23:23 AM

Velocity means that you are moving at a certain speed, in a certain direction. If you change either your speed or direction, you are accelerating.

You with me so far?

So, If you change your speed to slower, you are accelerating?

You would be decelerating, or in other words negative acceleration, for the most part same force calculations but in a different direction.

Quote from: Humble_Scientist on May 22, 2016, 07:56:50 PM

Quote from: rabinoz on May 22, 2016, 04:45:54 PM

Quote from: Tommi Atkins on May 22, 2016, 01:28:33 PM

As ever. Drifting off topic.

Post a model of water curving.

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 acceleration due its  rotation. 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

Now, please understand that the only reason I am showing this it to demonstrate that the surface of water need not be "straight". It simply depends on the local acceleration, here gravity (down) and centrifugal acceleration (outwards). So, at the outside edge the surface of the water is at about 45° to the horizontal.

I am not suggesting that the rotation of the earth holds the oceans in place, it most certainly does not.

There are other examples such as in eddies and whirlpools, where again an acceleration due to rotation is involved.

But, there is no way to do a table-top experiment of gravitation causing curving - any local effects are simply swamped by the immensely more massive earth very closeby.

"There are other examples such as in eddies and whirlpools, where again an acceleration due to rotation is involved."

In your picture, such a whirlpool can be seen near the middle arrow. If the Earth were rotating, it would also have a whirlpool at the North Pole. But there is none. 'Cause the Earth is not rotating.

If the Earth were rotating, the Gulfstream would flow westward. In reality, it goes eastward - to Europe. Because the Earth is not rotating.

If the Earth were rotating, its crust would be flopping a couple of feet twice a day, at more than 400 m/s near equator. Imagine the earthquakes and volcano eruptions due to that. Fortunately, it does not happen.

Because the Earth is not rotating. Besides, it is flat.
 

And you call yourself a scientist.

Hmmm... such a bitter reply... C'mon, man, cheer up! Lift your spirit! How'bout some beer with that NASA lunar basil, must be healthy and tasty:




https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=66674.msg1778554#msg1778554

 
 

Quote from: Humble_Scientist on May 22, 2016, 07:56:50 PM

Quote from: rabinoz on May 22, 2016, 04:45:54 PM

Quote from: Tommi Atkins on May 22, 2016, 01:28:33 PM

As ever. Drifting off topic.

Post a model of water curving.

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 acceleration due its  rotation. 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

Now, please understand that the only reason I am showing this it to demonstrate that the surface of water need not be "straight". It simply depends on the local acceleration, here gravity (down) and centrifugal acceleration (outwards). So, at the outside edge the surface of the water is at about 45° to the horizontal.

I am not suggesting that the rotation of the earth holds the oceans in place, it most certainly does not.

There are other examples such as in eddies and whirlpools, where again an acceleration due to rotation is involved.

But, there is no way to do a table-top experiment of gravitation causing curving - any local effects are simply swamped by the immensely more massive earth very closeby.

"There are other examples such as in eddies and whirlpools, where again an acceleration due to rotation is involved."

In your picture, such a whirlpool can be seen near the middle arrow. If the Earth were rotating, it would also have a whirlpool at the North Pole. But there is none. 'Cause the Earth is not rotating.

If the Earth were rotating, the Gulfstream would flow westward. In reality, it goes eastward - to Europe. Because the Earth is not rotating.

If the Earth were rotating, its crust would be flopping a couple of feet twice a day, at more than 400 m/s near equator. Imagine the earthquakes and volcano eruptions due to that. Fortunately, it does not happen.

Because the Earth is not rotating. Besides, it is flat.
 

You claim "If the Earth were rotating, it would also have a whirlpool at the North Pole." Why?
You claim "If the Earth were rotating, the Gulfstream would flow westward." Why?
You claim "If the Earth were rotating, its crust would be flopping a couple of feet twice a day, at more than 400 m/s near equator" Why?

Besides, all I said about rotation was "I am not suggesting that the rotation of the earth holds the oceans in place". Hardly justification for your hideously unscientific outburst.

"Humble_Scientist" clearly neither "Humble" nor "Scientist"!

Maybe you should study up on science, then read the book "Humility and How I Achieved it" by C. Neal Davis.

You are talking complete rubbish, unless you can justify your outlandish claims with some real science!

 

Rabinoz, my dear buddy, I've already tried to explain that to you. Look. You yourself so kindly provided a crystal clear picture of a whirlpool in the middle of rotating body of water. Why it was formed, how do you think?
 

Quote from: Master_Evar on May 23, 2016, 02:23:23 AM

Velocity means that you are moving at a certain speed, in a certain direction. If you change either your speed or direction, you are accelerating.

You with me so far?

So, If you change your speed to slower, you are accelerating?

Yes. One could also use the term decelerating (layman term: braking), which is exactly the same thing as acceleration, but always negative.

Quote from: rabinoz on May 22, 2016, 11:09:33 PM

Quote from: Humble_Scientist on May 22, 2016, 07:56:50 PM

Quote from: rabinoz on May 22, 2016, 04:45:54 PM

Quote from: Tommi Atkins on May 22, 2016, 01:28:33 PM

As ever. Drifting off topic.

Post a model of water curving.

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 acceleration due its  rotation. 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

Now, please understand that the only reason I am showing this it to demonstrate that the surface of water need not be "straight". It simply depends on the local acceleration, here gravity (down) and centrifugal acceleration (outwards). So, at the outside edge the surface of the water is at about 45° to the horizontal.

I am not suggesting that the rotation of the earth holds the oceans in place, it most certainly does not.

There are other examples such as in eddies and whirlpools, where again an acceleration due to rotation is involved.

But, there is no way to do a table-top experiment of gravitation causing curving - any local effects are simply swamped by the immensely more massive earth very closeby.

"There are other examples such as in eddies and whirlpools, where again an acceleration due to rotation is involved."

In your picture, such a whirlpool can be seen near the middle arrow. If the Earth were rotating, it would also have a whirlpool at the North Pole. But there is none. 'Cause the Earth is not rotating.

If the Earth were rotating, the Gulfstream would flow westward. In reality, it goes eastward - to Europe. Because the Earth is not rotating.

If the Earth were rotating, its crust would be flopping a couple of feet twice a day, at more than 400 m/s near equator. Imagine the earthquakes and volcano eruptions due to that. Fortunately, it does not happen.

Because the Earth is not rotating. Besides, it is flat.
 

You claim "If the Earth were rotating, it would also have a whirlpool at the North Pole." Why?
You claim "If the Earth were rotating, the Gulfstream would flow westward." Why?
You claim "If the Earth were rotating, its crust would be flopping a couple of feet twice a day, at more than 400 m/s near equator" Why?

Besides, all I said about rotation was "I am not suggesting that the rotation of the earth holds the oceans in place". Hardly justification for your hideously unscientific outburst.

"Humble_Scientist" clearly neither "Humble" nor "Scientist"!

Maybe you should study up on science, then read the book "Humility and How I Achieved it" by C. Neal Davis.

You are talking complete rubbish, unless you can justify your outlandish claims with some real science!

 

Rabinoz, my dear buddy, I've already tried to explain that to you. Look. You yourself so kindly provided a crystal clear picture of a whirlpool in the middle of rotating body of water. Why it was formed, how do you think?
 

Have a look at the video. I do not see any whirlpool there! Though I suppose you could call the whole thing a "whirlpool simulation".
But, even if there was, what connection would it have with the earth rotating at about 0.00069 rpm?

So, what about you answering the questions I asked - all of them!
You claim "If the Earth were rotating, it would also have a whirlpool at the North Pole." Why?
And "If the Earth were rotating, the Gulfstream would flow westward." Why?
And "If the Earth were rotating, its crust would be flopping a couple of feet twice a day, at more than 400 m/s near equator" Why?

Then I'll see about answering them.

Quote from: Humble_Scientist on May 23, 2016, 04:32:08 AM

Quote from: rabinoz on May 22, 2016, 11:09:33 PM

Quote from: Humble_Scientist on May 22, 2016, 07:56:50 PM

Quote from: rabinoz on May 22, 2016, 04:45:54 PM

Quote from: Tommi Atkins on May 22, 2016, 01:28:33 PM

As ever. Drifting off topic.

Post a model of water curving.

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 acceleration due its  rotation. 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

Now, please understand that the only reason I am showing this it to demonstrate that the surface of water need not be "straight". It simply depends on the local acceleration, here gravity (down) and centrifugal acceleration (outwards). So, at the outside edge the surface of the water is at about 45° to the horizontal.

I am not suggesting that the rotation of the earth holds the oceans in place, it most certainly does not.

There are other examples such as in eddies and whirlpools, where again an acceleration due to rotation is involved.

But, there is no way to do a table-top experiment of gravitation causing curving - any local effects are simply swamped by the immensely more massive earth very closeby.

"There are other examples such as in eddies and whirlpools, where again an acceleration due to rotation is involved."

In your picture, such a whirlpool can be seen near the middle arrow. If the Earth were rotating, it would also have a whirlpool at the North Pole. But there is none. 'Cause the Earth is not rotating.

If the Earth were rotating, the Gulfstream would flow westward. In reality, it goes eastward - to Europe. Because the Earth is not rotating.

If the Earth were rotating, its crust would be flopping a couple of feet twice a day, at more than 400 m/s near equator. Imagine the earthquakes and volcano eruptions due to that. Fortunately, it does not happen.

Because the Earth is not rotating. Besides, it is flat.
 

You claim "If the Earth were rotating, it would also have a whirlpool at the North Pole." Why?
You claim "If the Earth were rotating, the Gulfstream would flow westward." Why?
You claim "If the Earth were rotating, its crust would be flopping a couple of feet twice a day, at more than 400 m/s near equator" Why?

Besides, all I said about rotation was "I am not suggesting that the rotation of the earth holds the oceans in place". Hardly justification for your hideously unscientific outburst.

"Humble_Scientist" clearly neither "Humble" nor "Scientist"!

Maybe you should study up on science, then read the book "Humility and How I Achieved it" by C. Neal Davis.

You are talking complete rubbish, unless you can justify your outlandish claims with some real science!

 

Rabinoz, my dear buddy, I've already tried to explain that to you. Look. You yourself so kindly provided a crystal clear picture of a whirlpool in the middle of rotating body of water. Why it was formed, how do you think?
 

Have a look at the video. I do not see any whirlpool there! Though I suppose you could call the whole thing a "whirlpool simulation".
But, even if there was, what connection would it have with the earth rotating at about 0.00069 rpm?

So, what about you answering the questions I asked - all of them!
You claim "If the Earth were rotating, it would also have a whirlpool at the North Pole." Why?
And "If the Earth were rotating, the Gulfstream would flow westward." Why?
And "If the Earth were rotating, its crust would be flopping a couple of feet twice a day, at more than 400 m/s near equator" Why?

Then I'll see about answering them.

 

It is so strange indeed. I'd say, a classical example how RET makes people blind. They do not see things right before their eyes - but blindly believe in NASA (c) pictures.

BASIL ON THE MOON!!!

Yet you were not surprised...
 

How, how, how can I explain to you things that you do not see, my dear friend?
 

May I ask you, which planet you're from?
 

"Have a look at the video. I do not see any whirlpool there!"

That's the root of your problem, dear Rabinoz. Please notice that you found it yourself, I've just helped you a bit. YOU DO NOT SEE THE FLAT TRUTH.
 

The whirlpool in your picture is in the middle, under the middle arrow & to the right of it. That's phenomenal. You have probably drown the arrow yourself - and you yourself do not see the whirlpool which you've pointed at! Thanks, man. You've made my day.

 

Do you see it now?
 
 
 

Shit, no one has said that to me in this thread yet. Oh no I have lied again.
I get it now. 1600 kph is very slow that is why if a tennis ball rotates once in 24 hours you will not fall off even if you stick your hand in water and pull it out some will be stuck to the underside even though if I turn left at 1,600 kph I will not feel any centrifugal force because I am going in a straight line.

No, it just feels like a straight line as the turn is very slow (not the speed you're moving).  Do you understand that .00069 RPM is rather slow?  You do know what 'RPM' means correct?  I should think so as you claim to have a pretty decent understanding of engines.

Rabinoz, my dear buddy, I've already tried to explain that to you. Look. You yourself so kindly provided a crystal clear picture of a whirlpool in the middle of rotating body of water. Why it was formed, how do you think?
 
Do you see it now?

No, there is no "whirlpool", and what if there was. How is a "whirlpool" in a tank rotation at 30 rpm relevant to an earth rotating at 0.00069 rpm.

NOW answer:
So, what about you answering the questions I asked - all of them!

• You claim "If the Earth were rotating, it would also have a whirlpool at the North Pole." Why would that create a whirlpool?
• And "If the Earth were rotating, the Gulfstream would flow westward." Why?
• And "If the Earth were rotating, its crust would be flopping a couple of feet twice a day, at more than 400 m/s near equator" Why?

You can't, because on a you have not logical answers! On a sphere rotating at a constant 0.00069 rpm none of these would happen.

How do I know for sure? Easy, because the earth IS a Globe rotating at about 0.00069 rpm and these things do not happen.

I know numerous reasons why your "Pepperoni Pizza Planet" simply cannot be flat with a Son a Moon circulating close above!

Also, I'm gonna do a quick mathematical analysis of the centripetal (or centrifugal) formula presented by rabinoz.

I guess the thing you might search for might be "Centrifugal force".

Quote from: Wikipedia

Centrifugal force
In Newtonian mechanics, the term centrifugal force is used to refer to an inertial force (also called a 'fictitious' force) directed away from the axis of rotation that appears to act on all objects when viewed in a rotating reference frame.

plus a whole lot more
from Google centrifugal force
Or you might choose one of the many other sources.

Wherever you get the info

centripetal acceleration (the cause) = (Velocity squared)/radius or v²/R in compatible units, say mks. 

Now the earth has an equatorial radius of 6,384 km (Wikipedia again) or 6.384 x 10⁶ m and
the earth actually rotates once in a little under 24 hours^[1], or once in 86164 secs.
So on the equator the surface velocity is the (circumference of the earth)/(time for one revolution) or

v = (2 x π x 6.384 x 10⁶/86164 m/s = 465.5 m/s

So our centripetal acceleration a_cent = 465.5²/6.384 x 10⁶ = 0.034 m/s²

[1] This is because in 24 hours the same spot faces the sun again, but in that time the earth has moved 1/365.24 of its orbit around the sun. So the earth rotates 360° in a bit under 24 hours.

So,
I'm going to use meters for all distances, and measure all time in seconds. What I want to do is rewrite the formula, so that you can input RPM into it. The unit of RPM is 1/min, or 1/60s. This is because RPM measures frequency. Outer velocity of a circle in m/s can be converted to RPM like this:
So for Centripetal = Velocity * Velocity / Radius, we get:
Now, Radius is converted to circumference according to:

Now, if we insert this into the equation:

If we simplify:

Let's try it, to make sure I did it right first. LEt's use EARTH, because why not (Like, the answer for the other equation is already written in the quote)? RPM = 0.0007, Circumference = 40 000 000m (rough figures). If I insert it into my transformed equation, I get:

And it seems to agree with the other calculation! Great!
This means that the Centripetal (or Centrifugal) acceleration is directly proportional to circumference (according to the transformed formula) but squared proportional to RPM. RPM has a much bigger effect on the centripetal acceleration than the circumference of an object (so size matters a little, but RPM matters more). So even if the surface velocity seems so high, if just the RPM is still low the centripetal acceleration will also be low.

Plus, since RPM = 60 *  Velocity / Circumference, RPM becomes a ratio between the speed and size. Therefore a low RPM means low speed compared to size, and a high RPM means high speed compared to size.