How about trying to prove that with some real evidence! Before you spew, make sure your evidence comes from earth's natural physical condition.
You mean like large scale weather patterns, which you continue to ignore?
But they still won't give you exact numbers, you need more precise things, man made instruments like Foucault's pendulum, laser ring gyroscopes, etc.
They even claim it is 0 MPH at the poles. That would have made a great laugh track in Rowan and Martin's Laugh In.
And do you know why? If you turn around a point, what is your linear/tangential velocity? 0, because you go no where. You stand in the same spot.
You repeatedly acting like it shouldn't be 0 shows you are either a complete imbecile or you know you are full of shit.
What do you think it should be at the poles. Please explain in detail how you arrived at your horribly wrong conclusion.
If the physics is based on a spinning speeding earth, then it is a fabrication. Why don't you try being honest about the physics of water, for a change!
No. The fabrications are based upon a flat stationary Earth.
A spinning speeding Earth matches reality.
Why don't you try being honest for once?
The physics of water means it will follow the surface of a spinning massive sphere.
It won't just magically be flat.
What do you think determines which way it becomes flat?
If you are going to appeal to Earth being down, and it should be perpendicular to that, then guess what? For a round Earth it would follow the curve.
If you wish to appeal to something else, you need to explain what it is and where it is.
"Have you ever flown in a plane? Were you able to get up and walk around without sliding everywhere even though you weren't bolted down?"
Oh please, I destroyed that claim weeks ago! Standing on earth, we are not encased in a solid shell/skin, like being in a plane. The atmosphere, thick or thin, is not going to provide the protection from the forces of moving at 1.8 million MPH, and it will not alter the effects of the ground moving at 1,000 MPH.
No. You didn't destroy anything except any respect people had for you.
It isn't being encased in a solid shell/skin that is the issue.
In the plane, the air inside it is moving at the same speed as you, so you don't feel any force from it.
If you were standing outside the plane, moving through the atmosphere, then that is moving relative to you and you feel force from it.
On Earth, the atmosphere is moving with us, so we don't feel force from it.
There is no atmosphere that Earth is moving through to generate a force.
There is no magic force associated with movement. If there was, you would feel it in a plane as well.
There is nothing to be protected from.
Just exactly what do you think you should feel from moving at some speed (without appealing to anything external to you like the air)?
And we pointed out all this bullshit before, and you have provided no refutation.
We are the ones destroying your crap, not the other way around.
If the aircraft you are speeding in starts rotating, you are screwed! It is a weak, non-effect argument, come up with something better! Keep that garbage excuse out of my thread!
That depends how quickly it starts rotating. If it starts rotating such that it is accelerating at a rate of 0.03 m/s^2, you wouldn't even notice.
You are the one providing a weak-non-effect non-argument, not us.
You are the one who needs to come up with something better to defend your delusional nonsense.
We will keep pointing out your bullshit.
Then why does the ground feel motionless?
That was already explained, repeatedly.
You and the ground are moving at the same speed.
As such, relative to you, it is motionless.
Just like if you were on a plane.
If the atmosphere is being dragged along by earth's surface by friction
No one gives a shit. It isn't, at least not to the scale required for Earth's rotation.
It is being moved along by its own inertia.
The only time friction comes into it is for large scale weather patterns where it is moving at a small relative speed.
where are the physical clues/signs/evidence from earth's physical condition that supports that claim? If the atmosphere is being dragged along by friction, then the atmosphere cannot be at the same speed as the surface of earth, it would always drag behind.
No it wouldn't. The friction would result in it speeding up, until it eventually was at the same speed. It wouldn't always drag behind.
If a wing-walker has issues with navigating a 100 MPH platform, then why don't we have issues with navigating a 1,000 MPH platform? Support your fffing claims with some real evidence, FOR ONCE!
Because our platform isn't moving around jerkily like the plane is, and more importantly, the air we are moving through is moving at the same speed, while the wing-walker is moving through the air at 100 miles per hour.
How about you try supporting your claims with some real evidence which actually matches the claims you are trying to make or even just a rational explanation?
You are yet to do any of it.
Oh PLEASE! I can walk through the atmosphere, it ain't strong enough to protect us from the forces associated with standing on the outside of a speeding vessel. It is a weak, non-logical excuse, not a factual statement.
Bucky, you are encased in the atmosphere inside the speeding vessel, right? I guess you can then remove the skin of the speeding aircraft, because after all, the atmosphere inside the speeding vessel, that you are encased in, is going to protect you, right?
Again, what forces?
You do not experience forces from standing outside of a speeding vessel.
You experience forces from moving through the air.
If what you were saying is true, and the atmosphere is incapable of providing any kind of protection, then it would also be incapable of making those forces you feel from moving through it.
No, the atmosphere in the moving vessel will not protect you from the equally dense atmosphere outside.
But the atmosphere of Earth is more than capable of protecting us from the vacuum of space, with its virtually 0 density.
Go take a ride at 1,000 MPH on a motorcycle, you'll understand what forces I'm talking about! Stop diverting with senseless side-arguments. Stick to the thread topic, prove, using earth's physical condition, we are on a spinning speeding ball, BET YOU CAN'T DO IT!!!!!!!
With the air moving with us, or with us moving through the air?
If it is us moving through the air, then it doesn't match Earth. If it is with the air moving with us, then while I understand the forces you are talking about, I realise your argument is bullshit and you wouldn't experience these forces.
Why don't you tell us what makes these forces?
How about instead of demanding we prove it you tell us (with an explanation) exactly what it is we should be feeling, because so far all you have done is spouted pure bullshit which doesn't match Earth at all. Or alternatively, prove Earth is flat and stationary. BET YOU CAN'T DO IT!!!!
Human's cannot perceive the effects of Earth's rotation and movement through space, but we can observe them on other things, like stellar parallax and aberration, laser ring gyroscopes, large scale weather patterns and so on.
Yeah, but you claimed the atmosphere is strong enough to protect us from the forces of earth speeding along through the "almost vacuum of space", yet it is the atmosphere on the skinless aircraft that is kicking your @$$!
Yes, that's right.
That is because you are moving relative to it.
It is like the metal skin on the plane. That protects you right? Well get into a human cannon and try flying through the metal skin. It wont work very well, in fact, you could say it is kicking your ass, and it does an even better job than the atmosphere of doing so.
You moving through the atmosphere is like trying to move through the skin of the plane.
Just like the skin of the plane is kicking your ass, the atmosphere will as well.
If the atmosphere was incapable of protecting us from the vacuum of space, then it would be incapable of kicking our ass and making us fall over from the wind or moving too quickly.
"Grasshopper, stand in the courtyard and tell me what you feel."
Grasshopper moves out into courtyard
"I don't not feel anything, the ground feels motionless."
"So your senses do not feel motion. What does your intuition tell you?"
"My intuition tells me the ground is motionless."
I do not feel anything. I do not feel motion, I do not feel stationary. My senses are incapable of distinguishing between these 2.
My intuition, from observing the world around me tells me Earth is a rotating sphere.
This is because the sun must be very far away to be able to rise due East for everyone on the equinox, yet pass directly overhead the equator, thus it makes far more sense for Earth's rotation to be the cause of the day/night cycle than the sun moving so fast.
"Trust always, your senses and intuition, they are the path of true understanding."
Master, you are a complete moron, your senses are one of the most fallible things you have. They will constantly fool you with all sorts of things, and are no where near precise enough to detect so many things it isn't funny.
That is why science uses instruments instead. They are far more reliable.
Test repeatable observations with instruments. If you can't get it on them, it is probably bullshit.
You were encased in the inside atmosphere of the skinned aircraft, right? That atmosphere should protect you once the skin of the aircraft is removed, right?
No.
The atmosphere inside the craft has pretty much the same density (and thus the same mass and takes the same amount of energy to push) as the atmosphere outside.
It would be like flying a plane into a plane. Should the skin on the plane protect you from the other plane? No.
I mean, after all, that is what you claim is protecting us as we navigate the outside of the speeding earth vessel through the NON-VACUUM of space! Your counter-argument is a bogus pile of feces!
And what is the density of the non-vacuum of space? Effectively 0. It is many orders of magnitude less than that of the atmosphere.
As such, the atmosphere can easily protect you.
So no, your counter-argument, using such pathetic examples which in no way compare to what we are saying is a bogus pile of crap. It is a pathetic childish straw-man.
If you can see the curve away from you, then why can't you see the curve in the horizon left to right? You'll claim to see this drastic curve going away, but see none going left to right. Maybe we live on a rolling pin?
That is because it is curved down to the same extent, resulting in the same angle.
If we lived on a rolling pin then the horizon to the left or right would be higher.
Watch a train leaving a station on a known flat level straight track on a hot day. You'll see the bottom half of the train become obscure from refraction, before the top half finally disappears from perspective. On the water, you are dealing with refraction, and a few other phenomena.
A flat track, which is a straight line, or a level track, which follows Earth's curve?
Why a hot day? Why not a cool one where you won't have the issue of refraction?
Guess what, you still see it disappear from the bottom up.
It isn't from refraction, it is from going over the horizon.
Since when did water convex once it fills a void?
I already provided pictures of that, and you just dismissed them as being fake.
Perhaps you would prefer a completely dishonest comparison from nature. Go look at a lotus leaf. The water produces a convex surface.
Go look at water in a test tube, it produces a concave surface.
Where is water flat, across a 12 000 km void?
Yeah, it has to be "tiny", it just has to be.
No, it doesn't have to be, it just is.
Do you have any evidence at all that it isn't?
Never mind the bulk of the earth slamming into the "solar wind" at 1.8 million MPH, hey?
No. Not at 1.8 million MPH.
You really don't understand relative motion at all.
Even if the sun was moving at 1.8 million miles per hours, the solar wind would not be hitting us at a relative speed of 1.8 million miles per hour.
The solar wind and Earth, on average is moving with the sun. The speed of Earth relative to the sun is only 30 km/s, but the gas around us is also moving at approximately that speed, and that gas already has a density of basically 0.
The solar wind is even lower density, but it is moving at some significant speed.
I think I might have found your 1.8 BS number.
The solar wind, near Earth, is moving at a speed of 300-500 km/s. This works out to be 1.8 million km per hour.
But its density and mass is effectively 0.
It exerts a pressure of roughly 1 nPa (nano Pascal). That is 1*10^-9 Pa.
The atmosphere exerts a pressure of 100 000 Pa.
Do you think that 100 000 Pa is more than enough to protect us from the 0.000000001 Pa of the solar wind?
We can also look at how much it would be accelerating Earth.
Earth, with a radius of 6371 km, would have a cross sectional area of roughly 128,000,000,000,000. m^2. Conveinently a Pa is N/m^2.
This means a force of 1 nPa will exert a force of 0.000000001 N for each m^2.
That means Earth will experience a force of 128 000 N.
But Earth has a mass of roughly 6*10^24 kg.
As F=ma (where a N is kg*m/s^2), this means the acceleration resulting from this solar wind will be a mere 2*10^-20 m/s^2
So so tiny it isn't funny.
So yes, the atmosphere will protect us and we will not be able to perceive the tiny acceleration from it.
Similarly, any resulting Magnus force will be tiny.
Just like NASA admits their globe is photoshopped, "because, it, it has to be!" Oh yeah, and don't mention the Magnus Force when a solid sphere is spinning inside earth's atmosphere, naw, well save those for my next thread.
They admit one of their globes is a computer model based upon numerous photographs that are stitched together.
They have plenty of single photos.
I'm just waiting for you'll to finally realize......................{naw, I'll just see how long it takes them to figure it out.........}
Realize that you are a complete imbecile that knows nothing, or a pathetic childish troll? Don't worry, we realise.
I don't refute your bullshit for you, I can tell that would be an impossible goal as you have no interest in the truth.
I do it so no one else would come and read your bullshit and possibly be convinced by it.
Show me a body of water on earth that is convex, once it fills a void. There are three huge lakes, one in Siberia, and one on the African Continent, and one in North America. Show me an aerial view of the convex water surface in those bodies of water, after all, you are dealing with hundreds of miles of water surface. By the way, the lake in Siberia, once it freezes over, it is known as the largest flat horizontal surface in the world. A flat horizontal surface is not convex.
Already provided it. You dismissed it as fake.
Yes, lots of ignorant people, like you will claim a level surface as a flat one.
Can you provide a picture of a large (several thousand km) body of water which is flat?
I gave you'll a hint, I knew you wouldn't get it! The answer involves a few experiments. This thread is not about experiments. You'll have to wait till my next thread.
You mean the thread we have been waiting for you to make for ages?
I think it is because you know it is bullshit and know there is effectively nothing for us to be protected from.