Convince me the earth is a spinning speeding ball with clues from earth.

Go make some physical observations!

My, my, my, look at the flat water line horizon, horizontally level to plane earth. I bet your video creator didn't talk about that, hey?

Then he tells us to look away from earth, and up into the sky. You know it s the sky that is rotating, not earth.

Then of course, he disables our ability to observe earth, by directing us to a math book. Same old mind-numbing BULL-SHIT!

The biggest issue is, he is calculating FE, using the false paradigms of RE. Can anyone give me clues from earth we are spinning and speeding?

My, my, my, look at the flat water line horizon, horizontally level to plane earth. I bet your video creator didn't talk about that, hey?

Nope. Look at the horizon, equally distant and thus having the same angle of depression thus appearing flat.

Look at you, completely ignoring the actual argument and instead appealing to the same refuted straw-man.

Then he tells us to look away from earth, and up into the sky. You know it s the sky that is rotating, not earth.

No. We know that Earth is rotating due to the evidence in the form of low pressure and high pressure systems, including tropical storms like cyclones, as well as man made devices to measure this rotation such as Foucault's pendulum and laser ring gyroscopes.
The sheer distance to the objects in the sky also make it quite apparent that Earth is rotating causing their apparent motion.

Then of course, he disables our ability to observe earth, by directing us to a math book. Same old mind-numbing BULL-SHIT!

No. He doesn't disable your ability to observe Earth. He explains the math behind it and shows how that supports a round Earth, not a flat one. Try again.

The biggest issue is, he is calculating FE, using the false paradigms of RE. Can anyone give me clues from earth we are spinning and speeding?

No. He is calculating FE, using reality, showing how FE doesn't match reality.

What false paradigms of RE is he using? Do you mean things like real perspective instead of bullshit FE perspective?

You have already been provided these clues multiple times.

Go make some physical observations!

I can just hear  Mr Physical Obfuscator's^© reaction:

Come on that video must be CGI, the sun can't be on the horizon! We know it's 3,000 miles up. 

Besides "I demanded clues from earth" and that is the sun so it doesn't count!

Demanding didn't do old King Canute much good either.

Quote from: Novarus on April 01, 2017, 01:34:17 PM

First, a simple example: A non stop flight from Los Angeles, USA to Seoul, South Korea takes roughly the same amount of time as a non stop flight from Sydney, Australia to Santiago de Chile. On a flat earth, the latter flight would take far longer, would it not? Unless the plane were travelling at supersonic speeds, the similarity of flight time is only possible on a sphere.

Now, let's talk about something we can all relate to - the sky:
Having lived in the southern hemisphere for most of my life, I moved to the northern hemisphere and marvelled at the fact that the stars in the sky were unfamiliar to me. I was seeing the other half of the celestial sphere that I had never seen before.
If the stars seen from the south are different from the ones in the north, we must be seeing a different section of the sky. They also rotate across the course of a night in the same direction and at the same speed in both places.
Now, in a flat earth, all the stars seen from anywhere on the plane would be the same. Instead of a celestial sphere like the one we observe, there would be a celestial disc that remained identical when seen from any point on the earth.
 If said disc were rotating, then the stars in outer/southern latitudes would wheel past faster than those at inner/northern latitudes.
Also, there would only be one pole  star - the apparent lynchpin of This "star disc"
This is not the case.
The stars appear to trace a circular path around Polaris in the north and Sigma Octanis in the south.
This is only possible if the perspective of the observer moves over the surface of a rotating sphere.

The phases of the moon are dependent on the relative positions of the moon and the sun. If the moon and the sun were circling each other as in the celebrated "yin yang" gif that tried to explain time zones, both would always be visible in the sky at all times and the moon would only ever have one phase - half-illuminated. The moon would also appear to shrink in the distance as it "set" or receded over the disc.
This is not the case.
Side note - if the earth is accelerating upwards at 1g, so are the sun and moon. What's keeping them up there?

If the sun is tracing a large circle above the earth disc, there should be latitudes where it is always visible.  In fact, anything "inside" that arc would be in perpetual daylight. In the yin yang model, that covers most of Europe, Asia and North America. Even if the light from the sun is somehow blocked by something lile shutters on a stage light, its beam would always be visible - if we are indeed on a flat disc, then we should be able to see all light-casting celestial bodies at all times - they would never touch the horizon, only recede and shrink in the sky.
This is not the case.

Venus and Mercury have both been observed transiting (passing in front of) the sun on many occasions. They also exhibit motion that can only be explained by them orbiting the sun, like the Earth. If this were a flat Earth, then at certain points both Venus and Mercury would have to pass close to the Earth' s surface, underneath the yin yang sun. They would cast shadows like a partial eclipse and, like the moon, would also be visible at all times from all latitudes.
This is not the case.

The basic models that the Flat Earth puts forward are flawed, and fundamentally so. Their predictions do not match what is observed. And the explanation that everyone is in on the lie does not comply with Occam's Razor - that implies centuries, if not millennia of conspiracy, massive amounts of time, energy and money spent on deception and finely tuned international orchestration of infinitely detailed false science.
That doesn't sound very simple to me.

So, you have absolutely no clues from earth it is a spinning speeding ball.

All of these facts are based on Earth-based observations that support a spherical Earth. Did you read the post? I mean, the one fact that from the Earth we see two pole stars. There is no other explanation for the fact that we see the stars spinning in the same direction at the same speed but with a different set of stars from the Earth that we are on a ball.
Offer a rebuttal - present a model that explains these Earth-based observations from a Flat Earth perspective.

P. Observer, we need to back up and discuss a basic principle of scientific logic: when two competing explanations both seem to work for an observation, we have not verified either explanation. Therefore, to solve the dilemma, a scientist will try to find a test that causes one explanation to succeed and the other to fail. Just insisting that one of them is right doesn't cut it. When FE says "day/night caused by circling sun," and RE says "day/night caused by rotation of Earth," we have to design some other tests to check out the workings and implications of each model. The video uses math at first, but you don't like math. (That's okay, but I should warn you that conceding all mathematical evidence to RE means you lose in the public arena.) The second proof (did you watch that far?) requires no math. Just stand in an east-west street at sunset on an equinox and then look at your FE map. No way your map works (and no tricky math--just physical observations).

Quote from: physical observer on April 01, 2017, 01:52:18 PM

Quote from: Novarus on April 01, 2017, 01:34:17 PM

First, a simple example: A non stop flight from Los Angeles, USA to Seoul, South Korea takes roughly the same amount of time as a non stop flight from Sydney, Australia to Santiago de Chile. On a flat earth, the latter flight would take far longer, would it not? Unless the plane were travelling at supersonic speeds, the similarity of flight time is only possible on a sphere.

Now, let's talk about something we can all relate to - the sky:
Having lived in the southern hemisphere for most of my life, I moved to the northern hemisphere and marvelled at the fact that the stars in the sky were unfamiliar to me. I was seeing the other half of the celestial sphere that I had never seen before.
If the stars seen from the south are different from the ones in the north, we must be seeing a different section of the sky. They also rotate across the course of a night in the same direction and at the same speed in both places.
Now, in a flat earth, all the stars seen from anywhere on the plane would be the same. Instead of a celestial sphere like the one we observe, there would be a celestial disc that remained identical when seen from any point on the earth.
 If said disc were rotating, then the stars in outer/southern latitudes would wheel past faster than those at inner/northern latitudes.
Also, there would only be one pole  star - the apparent lynchpin of This "star disc"
This is not the case.
The stars appear to trace a circular path around Polaris in the north and Sigma Octanis in the south.
This is only possible if the perspective of the observer moves over the surface of a rotating sphere.

The phases of the moon are dependent on the relative positions of the moon and the sun. If the moon and the sun were circling each other as in the celebrated "yin yang" gif that tried to explain time zones, both would always be visible in the sky at all times and the moon would only ever have one phase - half-illuminated. The moon would also appear to shrink in the distance as it "set" or receded over the disc.
This is not the case.
Side note - if the earth is accelerating upwards at 1g, so are the sun and moon. What's keeping them up there?

If the sun is tracing a large circle above the earth disc, there should be latitudes where it is always visible.  In fact, anything "inside" that arc would be in perpetual daylight. In the yin yang model, that covers most of Europe, Asia and North America. Even if the light from the sun is somehow blocked by something lile shutters on a stage light, its beam would always be visible - if we are indeed on a flat disc, then we should be able to see all light-casting celestial bodies at all times - they would never touch the horizon, only recede and shrink in the sky.
This is not the case.

Venus and Mercury have both been observed transiting (passing in front of) the sun on many occasions. They also exhibit motion that can only be explained by them orbiting the sun, like the Earth. If this were a flat Earth, then at certain points both Venus and Mercury would have to pass close to the Earth' s surface, underneath the yin yang sun. They would cast shadows like a partial eclipse and, like the moon, would also be visible at all times from all latitudes.
This is not the case.

The basic models that the Flat Earth puts forward are flawed, and fundamentally so. Their predictions do not match what is observed. And the explanation that everyone is in on the lie does not comply with Occam's Razor - that implies centuries, if not millennia of conspiracy, massive amounts of time, energy and money spent on deception and finely tuned international orchestration of infinitely detailed false science.
That doesn't sound very simple to me.

So, you have absolutely no clues from earth it is a spinning speeding ball.

All of these facts are based on Earth-based observations that support a spherical Earth. Did you read the post? I mean, the one fact that from the Earth we see two pole stars. There is no other explanation for the fact that we see the stars spinning in the same direction at the same speed but with a different set of stars from the Earth that we are on a ball.
Offer a rebuttal - present a model that explains these Earth-based observations from a Flat Earth perspective.

"earth-based observations"

Sure, you stand on earth to read a math book, and look up to the sky, but they are not clues from earth. All clues from earth point to a motionless plane. That is why you bury your face in a math book, and stare off into the sky.

"There is no other explanation for the fact that we see the stars spinning..."

Sure there is. The stars are different out near the edge of plane earth, why do you think they would be the same as seen closer to the center of plane earth?

Why are there no clues from earth that we are spinning and speeding? 

Quote from: Novarus on April 01, 2017, 03:36:37 PM

Quote from: physical observer on April 01, 2017, 01:52:18 PM

Quote from: Novarus on April 01, 2017, 01:34:17 PM

First, a simple example: A non stop flight from Los Angeles, USA to Seoul, South Korea takes roughly the same amount of time as a non stop flight from Sydney, Australia to Santiago de Chile. On a flat earth, the latter flight would take far longer, would it not? Unless the plane were travelling at supersonic speeds, the similarity of flight time is only possible on a sphere.

Now, let's talk about something we can all relate to - the sky:
Having lived in the southern hemisphere for most of my life, I moved to the northern hemisphere and marvelled at the fact that the stars in the sky were unfamiliar to me. I was seeing the other half of the celestial sphere that I had never seen before.
If the stars seen from the south are different from the ones in the north, we must be seeing a different section of the sky. They also rotate across the course of a night in the same direction and at the same speed in both places.
Now, in a flat earth, all the stars seen from anywhere on the plane would be the same. Instead of a celestial sphere like the one we observe, there would be a celestial disc that remained identical when seen from any point on the earth.
 If said disc were rotating, then the stars in outer/southern latitudes would wheel past faster than those at inner/northern latitudes.
Also, there would only be one pole  star - the apparent lynchpin of This "star disc"
This is not the case.
The stars appear to trace a circular path around Polaris in the north and Sigma Octanis in the south.
This is only possible if the perspective of the observer moves over the surface of a rotating sphere.

The phases of the moon are dependent on the relative positions of the moon and the sun. If the moon and the sun were circling each other as in the celebrated "yin yang" gif that tried to explain time zones, both would always be visible in the sky at all times and the moon would only ever have one phase - half-illuminated. The moon would also appear to shrink in the distance as it "set" or receded over the disc.
This is not the case.
Side note - if the earth is accelerating upwards at 1g, so are the sun and moon. What's keeping them up there?

If the sun is tracing a large circle above the earth disc, there should be latitudes where it is always visible.  In fact, anything "inside" that arc would be in perpetual daylight. In the yin yang model, that covers most of Europe, Asia and North America. Even if the light from the sun is somehow blocked by something lile shutters on a stage light, its beam would always be visible - if we are indeed on a flat disc, then we should be able to see all light-casting celestial bodies at all times - they would never touch the horizon, only recede and shrink in the sky.
This is not the case.

Venus and Mercury have both been observed transiting (passing in front of) the sun on many occasions. They also exhibit motion that can only be explained by them orbiting the sun, like the Earth. If this were a flat Earth, then at certain points both Venus and Mercury would have to pass close to the Earth' s surface, underneath the yin yang sun. They would cast shadows like a partial eclipse and, like the moon, would also be visible at all times from all latitudes.
This is not the case.

The basic models that the Flat Earth puts forward are flawed, and fundamentally so. Their predictions do not match what is observed. And the explanation that everyone is in on the lie does not comply with Occam's Razor - that implies centuries, if not millennia of conspiracy, massive amounts of time, energy and money spent on deception and finely tuned international orchestration of infinitely detailed false science.
That doesn't sound very simple to me.

So, you have absolutely no clues from earth it is a spinning speeding ball.

All of these facts are based on Earth-based observations that support a spherical Earth. Did you read the post? I mean, the one fact that from the Earth we see two pole stars. There is no other explanation for the fact that we see the stars spinning in the same direction at the same speed but with a different set of stars from the Earth that we are on a ball.
Offer a rebuttal - present a model that explains these Earth-based observations from a Flat Earth perspective.

"earth-based observations"

Sure, you stand on earth to read a math book, and look up to the sky, but they are not clues from earth. All clues from earth point to a motionless plane. That is why you bury your face in a math book, and stare off into the sky.

"There is no other explanation for the fact that we see the stars spinning..."

Sure there is. The stars are different out near the edge of plane earth, why do you think they would be the same as seen closer to the center of plane earth?

Why are there no clues from earth that we are spinning and speeding?

The problem still remains that those "different stars" don't orbit the same centre at the edge of the disc - the southern sky circles around Sigma Octantis, not Polaris.

Those stars out on the edge should be spinning around the same centre, right?
Why are there two?

They also spin faster at the edge of the disc than at the centre
Why are they the same?

It is impossible in the Flat Earth theory that there can be two pole stars and for the two halves of the celestial sphere to be rotating at the same rate.
You are yet to refute this.

Sure, you stand on earth to read a math book, and look up to the sky, but they are not clues from earth. All clues from earth point to a motionless plane. That is why you bury your face in a math book, and stare off into the sky.

BULLSHIT.
There is not a single clue from Earth that points to a motinless plane.
All clues from Earth either point to a spinning ball or are unable to distinguish between the 2.

The math combined with observations, including observations of things like the sun shows it to be a spinning ball, which is why you are so desperate to hide from them, because they show you are full of shit.

"There is no other explanation for the fact that we see the stars spinning..."

Sure there is. The stars are different out near the edge of plane earth, why do you think they would be the same as seen closer to the center of plane earth?

You seem to have cut off the most important part, the fact about 2 celestial poles which stars appear to rotate around.
This can't happen on a flat Earth, especially not with them always being 180 degrees apart, regardless of where on Earth you are.

The angles to stars also don't match with a flat Earth, regardless of height chosen for the star.

Why are there no clues from earth that we are spinning and speeding?

There are, you just ignore them.

"earth-based observations"

Sure, you stand on earth to read a math book, and look up to the sky, but they are not clues from earth. All clues from earth point to a motionless plane. That is why you bury your face in a math book, and stare off into the sky.

You also seem to have forgotten about the flight times. How can the LA-Seoul flight and the Sydney-Santiago flight have the same flight time?
They describe arcs on the surface of a sphere.
Explain how this can work on the surface of a disc while maintaining relative distances.

"earth-based observations"

Sure, you stand on earth to read a math book, and look up to the sky, but they are not clues from earth. All clues from earth point to a motionless plane. That is why you bury your face in a math book, and stare off into the sky.

"There is no other explanation for the fact that we see the stars spinning..."

Sure there is. The stars are different out near the edge of plane earth, why do you think they would be the same as seen closer to the center of plane earth?

Why are there no clues from earth that we are spinning and speeding?

There is all kinds of evidence, that got already show to you in the other thread.
For example the Foucault pendulum.
As you could not disprove this fact you basically admit that you are wrong.
Case closed (as you like to say)

Why are there no clues from earth that we are spinning and speeding?

Here is you answer, smarty pants!

• It is quite impossible to detect linear motion without reference to some other object.
  
  
• Even the rotation of the earth causes so little centripetal acceleration that it requires intruments to detect and/or measure it.

You completely ignore or incorrectly claim that you have debunked the Coriolis effect and gyroscopes.

As I have stated numerous times the rotation of the earth was not originally determined for "clues from earth" alone.
So there is your answer.

The stars are different out near the edge of plane earth, why do you think they would be the same as seen closer to the center of plane earth?

Also, regardless of whether the stars are different at the 'edge', from a flat plane, all stars would be visible from all points, and they wouldn't describe circles in the sky. They would describe long ellipses, receding into the distance after they pass overhead, shrinking slowing down from an earth-based perspective as they reach their furthest point of elongation, then growing and speeding up as they pass overhead again.
This is not the case.

Once again, we go back to a very simple question: why to the stars have constant relative velocities in the sky when on a disc these velocities would be radically different depending on where you stand?

I'm just curious why you guys keep trying to answer this PO? He has been given all the right answers by a multitude of people. As far as I can tell he's no different than Heiwa.

FE can (sort of) explain several phenomena about the Earth. I'll give you that you have an explanation for day and night, spinning stars, seasons, phases of the moon, and maybe a couple of other things....Sometimes in some ways, FE is almost as good as RE, but it is not as consistently good as RE in all ways and is never better.

All of which can be thrown out if you go south of the equator.

. . . . .
"There is no other explanation for the fact that we see the stars spinning..."

Sure there is. The stars are different out near the edge of plane earth, why do you think they would be the same as seen closer to the center of plane earth?

The only difference in behaviour between the stars in the Southern Hemisphere and in the Northern Hemisphere
is that they appear to rotate clockwise around a single point that is called the "South Celestial Pole" and not
anti-clockwise around a single point that is called the "North Celestial Pole", where Polaris is located.

I don't need any Math Books or books on Astronomy to tell me that, I can see star groups like the Southern Cross do that just by looking out my back door.

So, run away and learn about the real earth, not the rubbish found in "Flat Earth Theory Indoctrination 101".

Quote from: Jonny B Smart on April 01, 2017, 05:45:50 AM

FE can (sort of) explain several phenomena about the Earth. I'll give you that you have an explanation for day and night, spinning stars, seasons, phases of the moon, and maybe a couple of other things....Sometimes in some ways, FE is almost as good as RE, but it is not as consistently good as RE in all ways and is never better.

All of which can be thrown out if you go south of the equator.

 Oh, I agree. Flat earth supporters love to cherry pick a couple things that sort of sound plausible from their point of view and ignore everything else.  When you press them for details, or show a flaw in their reasoning, or point out how their model won't even work the way they say it works, then they get really crabby.

I'm just curious why you guys keep trying to answer this PO? He has been given all the right answers by a multitude of people. As far as I can tell he's no different than Heiwa.

My guess is that Heiwa is genuinely deluded. I think he believes his own nonsense.

physical observer is just a troll. This is obvious from the way they persistently try to keep the boundaries of the 'discussion' to within the limits of their own straw men. I've seen no indication that physical observer does not think the earth is round.

Quote from: IonSpen on April 01, 2017, 05:35:38 PM

I'm just curious why you guys keep trying to answer this PO? He has been given all the right answers by a multitude of people. As far as I can tell he's no different than Heiwa.

My guess is that Heiwa is genuinely deluded. I think he believes his own nonsense.

physical observer is just a troll. This is obvious from the way they persistently try to keep the boundaries of the 'discussion' to within the limits of their own straw men. I've seen no indication that physical observer does not think the earth is round.

Yeah, that has to be it, I'm a troll using a straw-man argument. Yep, that certainly negates my solid FE argument. Good grief!

"I've seen no indication that physical observer does not think the earth is round."

I've never been up high enough to determine if the earth is round or square. I just know we are not on a ball spinning at 1,000 MPH, or speeding through the non-vacuum of space at 1.8 million MPH, there is no evidence for it on this earth. Water behaves like it is on a motionless plane, not a spinning speeding ball.

Once again, you haven't responded to any of the questions posed to you so far.
Go back and rebut the arguments posed instead of grasping at straws.
We are still waiting for some coherent answers.

Yeah, that has to be it, I'm a troll using a straw-man argument. Yep, that certainly negates my solid FE argument. Good grief!

You are yet to prevent any solid argument.

I just know we are not on a ball spinning at 1,000 MPH, or speeding through the non-vacuum of space at 1.8 million MPH, there is no evidence for it on this earth. Water behaves like it is on a motionless plane, not a spinning speeding ball.

No. Water behaves just like it would on a speeding spinning ball.

You are yet to refute that at all.
Instead all you have done is make horribly dishonest comparisons.

Quote from: physical observer on April 02, 2017, 03:02:05 AM

Yeah, that has to be it, I'm a troll using a straw-man argument. Yep, that certainly negates my solid FE argument. Good grief!

You are yet to prevent any solid argument.

Quote from: physical observer on April 02, 2017, 03:02:05 AM

I just know we are not on a ball spinning at 1,000 MPH, or speeding through the non-vacuum of space at 1.8 million MPH, there is no evidence for it on this earth. Water behaves like it is on a motionless plane, not a spinning speeding ball.

No. Water behaves just like it would on a speeding spinning ball.

You are yet to refute that at all.
Instead all you have done is make horribly dishonest comparisons.

"Water behaves just like it would on a speeding spinning ball."

Empty assertion. Where is your observable evidence? Show how water should behave on a spinning ball, then show the same phenomenon happening on plane earth.

Quote from: Copper Knickers on April 02, 2017, 12:32:01 AM

physical observer is just a troll. This is obvious from the way they persistently try to keep the boundaries of the 'discussion' to within the limits of their own straw men. I've seen no indication that physical observer does not think the earth is round.

Yeah, that has to be it, I'm a troll using a straw-man argument. Yep, that certainly negates my solid FE argument. Good grief!

I'm assuming sarcasm here, and yet...

I've never been up high enough to determine if the earth is round or square. I just know we are not on a ball spinning at 1,000 MPH, or speeding through the non-vacuum of space at 1.8 million MPH, there is no evidence for it on this earth. Water behaves like it is on a motionless plane, not a spinning speeding ball.

...as if to make my point - thank you!

You are saying:

The round earth model predicts X, but we see Y. Therefore the round earth model is wrong.

However, the round earth model does not predict X, it predicts Y. Your question is begged. It is a straw man.

But then, you know that.

List of things yet to be refuted so far:

Southern Pole Star
Southern hemisphere flight times
Motions of planets
Difference in observable stars at different latitudes
Phases of the moon
Obscuration of distant objects by horizon

There are more, but I have lost track.. anyone want to add to this? Feel free.

I'd suggest working through the list rather than jumping on the last thing someone said.

"Water behaves just like it would on a speeding spinning ball."

Empty assertion. Where is your observable evidence? Show how water should behave on a spinning ball, then show the same phenomenon happening on plane earth.

I already did.
You ignored it.
The apparent centrifugal acceleration is ~0.03 m/s^2.
Gravity more than overcomes that.
As such water should stick to the surface of Earth, which should have a slight buldge at the equator.

Perhaps a better example is water vapour in storm cells spinning in particular directions in particular hemispheres?

How about you try telling us exactly how water on a ball that is ~6371 km in radius, spinning at ~ 15 degrees an hour should behave and where that isn't observed on Earth?

Quote from: physical observer on April 02, 2017, 03:17:31 AM

"Water behaves just like it would on a speeding spinning ball."

Empty assertion. Where is your observable evidence? Show how water should behave on a spinning ball, then show the same phenomenon happening on plane earth.

I already did.
You ignored it.
The apparent centrifugal acceleration is ~0.03 m/s^2.
Gravity more than overcomes that.
As such water should stick to the surface of Earth, which should have a slight buldge at the equator.

Perhaps a better example is water vapour in storm cells spinning in particular directions in particular hemispheres?

How about you try telling us exactly how water on a ball that is ~6371 km in radius, spinning at ~ 15 degrees an hour should behave and where that isn't observed on Earth?

I ignore it, or refuted it?

"Perhaps a better example is water vapour in storm cells spinning in particular directions in particular hemispheres?"

Already refuted. I'm personally getting tired of refuting arguments I have already refuted.

"How about you try telling us exactly how water on a ball that is ~6371 km in radius, spinning at ~ 15 degrees an hour should behave..."

I already have, and have shown how water behaves in a rotating container.

It is you once again projecting, it is you doing the ignoring.

Quote from: JackBlack on April 02, 2017, 03:35:46 AM

Quote from: physical observer on April 02, 2017, 03:17:31 AM

"Water behaves just like it would on a speeding spinning ball."

Empty assertion. Where is your observable evidence? Show how water should behave on a spinning ball, then show the same phenomenon happening on plane earth.

I already did.
You ignored it.
The apparent centrifugal acceleration is ~0.03 m/s^2.
Gravity more than overcomes that.
As such water should stick to the surface of Earth, which should have a slight buldge at the equator.

Perhaps a better example is water vapour in storm cells spinning in particular directions in particular hemispheres?

How about you try telling us exactly how water on a ball that is ~6371 km in radius, spinning at ~ 15 degrees an hour should behave and where that isn't observed on Earth?

I ignore it, or refuted it?

Yes, you ignore things you can't understand!

"Perhaps a better example is water vapour in storm cells spinning in particular directions in particular hemispheres?"

Already refuted. I'm personally getting tired of refuting arguments I have already refuted.

You did not refute "Coriolis Effect".
The counter examples you presented were all shown to be false and wrongly identified!
You might remember this post of yours?

Hurricane over New Zealand: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/imageo/files/2014/03/Screenshot_3_5_14_10_28_AM.jpg

Long Range Snipers & the Coriolis Effect. « Reply #129 on: February 23, 2017, 11:44:12 PM »
in which you tried to claim that
But it was obviously misreported in that dodgy website you were using!

Hurricane over Fuji Islands: https://phys.org/newman/gfx/news/hires/2012/nasaseesdang.jpg

One area is south of the equator, the other north of the equator, but both spin in same direction. Tell me, a storm that started south of the equator and moves north of the equator, does it suddenly change spin direction?

You claimed it was a "Hurricane over Fuji Islands", then had to admit it was a "Hurricane over Fiji Islands".
Big, big difference.
And I have as yet seen no answer to this

The Coriolis effect is the reason for the four distinct situations that are observed for High Pressure Weather systems and Low Pressure Weather systems, including Hurricanes, Typhoons and Cyclones, in the Northern and Southern Hemispheres.

		Northern Hemisphere		Southern Hemisphere
Highs		Clockwise		Anti-clockwise
Lows		Anti-clockwise		Clockwise

Just look at weather maps that show highs, lows and wind directions to verify this for yourself,

or are you going to claim that all meteorologists are part of your conspiracy too!

"How about you try telling us exactly how water on a ball that is ~6371 km in radius, spinning at ~ 15 degrees an hour should behave..."

I already have, and have shown how water behaves in a rotating container.

It is you once again projecting, it is you doing the ignoring.

And you were asked "How about you try telling us exactly how water on a ball that is ~6371 km in radius, spinning at ~ 15 degrees an hour should behave...".
Please quote the post where you answered that!

You "have shown how water behaves in a rotating container", but that is quite irrelevant.
On earth, the effect of rotation is about 0.3% of gravity.
In your "Centrifugal Force on Rotating Water Container" video the rotation was so fast that the "centrifugal Force" was comparable with.

You really are a deceiver and exaggerator of the first order! You have never debunked anything to do with Coriolis or rotation.

Your "hurricanes"/"cyclones" were wrongly identified and
I somehow think that you have a very selective memory.

Still, if you are the best that the Flat Earth has the Heliocentric is safe for a few more millennia!

List of things yet to be refuted so far:

Southern Pole Star
Southern hemisphere flight times
Motions of planets
Difference in observable stars at different latitudes
Phases of the moon
Obscuration of distant objects by horizon

There are more, but I have lost track.. anyone want to add to this? Feel free.

I'd suggest working through the list rather than jumping on the last thing someone said.

--Some constellations change with the seasons, others stay all year
--extremely precise predictions of eclipses decades ahead of time

Evidence of rotating globe from Mt Rainier:

http://www.amusingplanet.com/2013/10/the-shadow-of-mount-rainier.html?m=1

Evidence of rotating globe from Mt Rainier:

http://www.amusingplanet.com/2013/10/the-shadow-of-mount-rainier.html?m=1

How does that prove the earth is a spinning speeding ball? You'll get the same effect on a motionless flat surface.

Quote from: Jonny B Smart on April 02, 2017, 08:00:27 AM

Evidence of rotating globe from Mt Rainier:

http://www.amusingplanet.com/2013/10/the-shadow-of-mount-rainier.html?m=1

How does that prove the earth is a spinning speeding ball? You'll get the same effect on a motionless flat surface.

What do you believe the path/rotation etc. of the earth is relative to the sun?