[Ask Me Anything] Will explain every observation using round earth model

  • 92 Replies
  • 3914 Views
Incidentally, in the Flat Earth model, those aurorae should be visible from everywhere on Earth. This is not the case.
I am sorry, but aurora have been observed everywhere on Earth.

I've seen it from my mountain perch in Maine.

Visual evidence please :P

Incidentally, in the Flat Earth model, those aurorae should be visible from everywhere on Earth. This is not the case.
I am sorry, but aurora have been observed everywhere on Earth.

I don't see it. It can't happen either. The magnetic field of the earth diverts the charged particles towards the poles. Therefore, you can see aurora near the poles.

Please do your homework and don't make baseless fake claims.

I do not give two shakes whether or not you have seen it.

Aurora have been reported from all over the Earth at all different latitudes and longitudes.

You go do some research before you throw out more crap.

*

Zaphod

  • 134
Physical Observer

Are you being deliberately obtuse? It's been explained to you over and over again. The resultant force on the water at the equator is still down as the centrifugal force (acting in the opposite directition to gravity) is tiny.

All the waters you see ARE curved. It's just that it's impossible to see as the radius of curvature is 6400 kilometres!

I'm beginning to think that this just one big wind up.

Did you look up Newton's laws?
« Last Edit: April 06, 2017, 09:11:00 AM by Zaphod »

Incidentally, in the Flat Earth model, those aurorae should be visible from everywhere on Earth. This is not the case.
I am sorry, but aurora have been observed everywhere on Earth.

I don't see it. It can't happen either. The magnetic field of the earth diverts the charged particles towards the poles. Therefore, you can see aurora near the poles.

Please do your homework and don't make baseless fake claims.

I do not give two shakes whether or not you have seen it.

Aurora have been reported from all over the Earth at all different latitudes and longitudes.

You go do some research before you throw out more crap.

was it always a Aurora or some other phenomenon?
can you give us some reports.

BTW
here

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aurora,_Ontario

you can see Aurora at any time, like i did.  ;D

Water can't obey both forces at the same time. Water in this bucket is being controlled by centrifugal forces, notice none of the water is trying to fall to a lower point on earth, it is being forced away from earth. Water cannot be controlled by both forces at the same time.
Yes, it can.
It can't be dominated by both.

Planes fly by a balance of a multitude of forces.
When it increases the lift on one wing to bank right, it doesn't magically just get controlled by that one force.

Do you have a rational objection, or can you just repeat the same nonsense?

You said you could disprove the evidence for flat earth with math and physics, all you could do was dismiss a picture of LV as being an actual photo. Go figure, another failure by an RE-ers. Typical!
No. I pointed out why your claim is false, and that water will obey both forces, and that results int the equator bulging.
What was your refutation? Just repeating the same refuted crap.

So no, another fail by you FE-ers.

"It can't be dominated by both."

I see you offered no evidence to support your claim. I offered visual evidence to support my claim. You are the one with the crap! Fact, you are not even good enough to have any crap. In order to have crap, you have to ingest something of substance. Your Mickey Mouse intelligence doesn't register on the intelligence scale of substance.

simply if you slow down your circle movement of the bucket the water will start to fall out of the bucket.
because the centrifugal force will get smaller and finally is smaller that the gravitational force.

a very simple experiment you can do yourself
« Last Edit: April 06, 2017, 09:16:33 AM by Canadabear »

*

deadsirius

  • 899
  • Crime Machine

Physical Observer

Are you being deliberately obtuse?


Yes.
Suffering from a martyr complex...so you don't have to

Physical Observer

Are you being deliberately obtuse? It's been explained to you over and over again. The resultant force on the water at the equator is still down as the centrifugal force (acting in the opposite directition to gravity) is tiny.

All the waters you see ARE curved. It's just that it's impossible to see as the radius of curvature is 6400 kilometres!

I'm beginning to think that this just one big wind up.

Did you look up Newton's laws?

None of you can show me the physical evidence form earth, can you? Impossible to see the curvature, can't find any bodies of water on earth dealing with centrifugal forces, the ground feels motionless.

"Did you look up Newton's laws?"

Did you look at the physical condition of earth?

Physical Observer

Are you being deliberately obtuse? It's been explained to you over and over again. The resultant force on the water at the equator is still down as the centrifugal force (acting in the opposite directition to gravity) is tiny.

All the waters you see ARE curved. It's just that it's impossible to see as the radius of curvature is 6400 kilometres!

I'm beginning to think that this just one big wind up.

Did you look up Newton's laws?

None of you can show me the physical evidence form earth, can you? Impossible to see the curvature, can't find any bodies of water on earth dealing with centrifugal forces, the ground feels motionless.

"Did you look up Newton's laws?"

Did you look at the physical condition of earth?
We know the earth is round. Agree?

*

Zaphod

  • 134
"Did you look at the physical condition of the earth"

Yes, it's round. I can tell it's not flat because the sun sets below a clear horizon. (Not some wishy-washy fading away atmosphere bollocks). That horizon recedes if I gain altitude. The earth and sea do measurably bulge a bit at the equator due to centrifugal force.

Ok, did you look up Newton's laws?

Do you ever answer a question?
« Last Edit: April 06, 2017, 10:05:28 AM by Zaphod »

Physical Observer

Are you being deliberately obtuse? It's been explained to you over and over again. The resultant force on the water at the equator is still down as the centrifugal force (acting in the opposite directition to gravity) is tiny.

All the waters you see ARE curved. It's just that it's impossible to see as the radius of curvature is 6400 kilometres!

I'm beginning to think that this just one big wind up.

Did you look up Newton's laws?

None of you can show me the physical evidence form earth, can you? Impossible to see the curvature, can't find any bodies of water on earth dealing with centrifugal forces, the ground feels motionless.

"Did you look up Newton's laws?"

Did you look at the physical condition of earth?
We know the earth is round. Agree?

But not a spinning speeding sphere.

"Did you look at the physical condition of the earth"

Yes, it's round. I can tell it's not flat because the sun sets below a clear horizon. (Not some wishy-washy fading away atmosphere bollocks). That horizon recedes if I gain altitude. The earth and sea do measurably bulge a bit at the equator due to centrifugal force.

Ok, did you look up Newton's laws?

Do you ever answer a question?

"Yes, it's round."

But not a spinning speeding sphere.

*

Zaphod

  • 134
I give up.

Ah go on, one more go....

Did you look up Newton's Laws of motion? Have you tried to understand them - you must have done them at school. They explain all you misunderstandings and misconceptions.

Edit to add...

I'm doing forces/acceleration etc with my kids at the moment. I've been looking at that website I linked earlier. It really is excellent so thanks!

http://www.physicsclassroom.com/Physics-Tutorial/Newton-s-Laws
« Last Edit: April 06, 2017, 10:25:17 AM by Zaphod »

I give up.

Ah go on, one more go....

Did you look up Newton's Laws of motion? Have you tried to understand them - you must have done them at school. They explain all you misunderstandings and misconceptions.

Edit to add...

I'm doing forces/acceleration etc with my kids at the moment. I've been looking at that website I linked earlier. It really is excellent so thanks!

http://www.physicsclassroom.com/Physics-Tutorial/Newton-s-Laws

"I give up."

Smart move, because there is no visual evidence from earth's nature that supports being on a spinning speeding ball. I really don't care what Newton thought he experienced. Obviously, he didn't investigate the physical condition of earth that well.

*

Zaphod

  • 134
Ok, you're making yourself look ignorant and stupid.

The ignorance you can do something about with a bit of effort.

People are politely spoon feeding you answers but to not even look at the resources people are providing you is just plain rude.


Ok, you're making yourself look ignorant and stupid.

The ignorance you can do something about with a bit of effort.

People are politely spoon feeding you answers but to not even look at the resources people are providing you is just plain rude.

They are not the answers requested. It is you'll that is looking ignorant and stupid.

Ok, you're making yourself look ignorant and stupid.

The ignorance you can do something about with a bit of effort.

People are politely spoon feeding you answers but to not even look at the resources people are providing you is just plain rude.

They are not the answers requested. It is you'll that is looking ignorant and stupid.

ignorant is somebody that ignores the evidence that got shown to him.

Ok, you're making yourself look ignorant and stupid.

The ignorance you can do something about with a bit of effort.

People are politely spoon feeding you answers but to not even look at the resources people are providing you is just plain rude.

They are not the answers requested. It is you'll that is looking ignorant and stupid.

ignorant is somebody that ignores the evidence that got shown to him.

Ignorant is also somebody who based their entire world view and makes assertions about the whole universe from a self-admitted incomplete perspective based on personal observation alone:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69974.msg1893073#msg1893073
Only the ignorant choose to ignore opposing views.
Fight for your belief, don't run away.
It's the only way anyone can take you seriously.

Physical Observer

Are you being deliberately obtuse? It's been explained to you over and over again. The resultant force on the water at the equator is still down as the centrifugal force (acting in the opposite directition to gravity) is tiny.

All the waters you see ARE curved. It's just that it's impossible to see as the radius of curvature is 6400 kilometres!

I'm beginning to think that this just one big wind up.

Did you look up Newton's laws?

None of you can show me the physical evidence form earth, can you? Impossible to see the curvature, can't find any bodies of water on earth dealing with centrifugal forces, the ground feels motionless.

"Did you look up Newton's laws?"

Did you look at the physical condition of earth?
We know the earth is round. Agree?

But not a spinning speeding sphere.
Relative to the sun it is.

*

rabinoz

  • 26337
  • Real Earth Believer
Smart move, because there is no visual evidence from earth's nature that supports being on a spinning speeding ball. I really don't care what Newton thought he experienced. Obviously, he didn't investigate the physical condition of earth that well.

There is no logical reason why "visual evidence from earth's nature" should support it being on "a spinning speeding ball"!

There is plenty "visual evidence from earth's nature that supports being on a . . . . . . ball" and you been given plenty of that.

But, and you have been told this numerous times:
  • It is impossible to detect linear motion without reference to some other object(s), and then only motion relative to that object.
  • The rotational speed of the earth, 0.007 rpm is far too slow to detect with our own senses.
Simple observation makes it clear that the earth rotating and/or moving relative to the moon, sun, planets and stars, and at different rates relative to all of them.

So, what had to be determined is:
  • Whether the earth is stationary and all these other objects move around us with extremely complex motions.
    This was the assumption of most observers in all the ancient civilisations in general up till the time of Copernicus.

  • Whether the earth and these objects rotate and/or move with respect to some fixed reference point.

  • Or whether the earth and these objects rotate and/or move but with no fixed reference point.
The present position is the latter, though the so-called "distant fixed stars" is more or less taken as a reference, even though there is no single point that is known to be stationary.

Being ignorant is quite understandable. Nobody can know everything, though some seem to think that they do.
But being wilfully ignorant is what can be called being stupid, though most of us are guilty of that in some areas.
Most of us tend to "close our eyes" to some things that we find are "inconvenient truths".

It is strange though that those who know the most are the ones that realise that there is so much more to find out:
....
“Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe.”
― Albert Einstein

So Mr Physical Observer, I choose not to follow you arbitrary rules because that would mean that I would be wilfully ignorant of information about the earth's motion.

You can choose to remain wilfully ignorant if you wish.


?

frenat

  • 3548
It is you'll that is looking ignorant and stupid.
Says the guy STILL using "you'll" incorrectly after being told multiple times it does NOT mean "you all" but rather "you will".  Ah, irony.

*

Mikey T.

  • 2420
It is you'll that is looking ignorant and stupid.
Says the guy STILL using "you'll" incorrectly after being told multiple times it does NOT mean "you all" but rather "you will".  Ah, irony.
Well, I can overlook grammatical errors if he could just get a basic grasp of critical thinking, at least at the level that my 7 year old autistic nephew has.

That is not visual evidence that water on earth is being pulled to make earth's curvature, and also falling to a lower place on earth at the same time.
No one ever said anything of the like.
This is evidence that water can be acted upon by 2 forces at once, that gravity and centrifugal forces can both act to affect the water, going directly against your claim.

Water on earth does not act like the water in the rotating container. You can't find a body of water on earth that is both being pulled from earth by centrifugal force, and falling to a lower place on earth at the same time, can you? You can't even find a body of water on earth that is being pulled away from earth by centrifugal force, can you? That is why you need to insult and use lab experiments that do not apply.
We can, every single body of water on Earth is.
You can't find a single example where it isn't. The closest you can come are examples where one is not detectable.

This lab experiment disproves your claim and that both forces can act.

But no, both forces cannot dominate. You have 3 options:
Gravity wins and the water falls, but slower than if it wasn't spinning, and such that in equilibrium, it bulges at the equator.
Centrifugal forces win, and the water flies off the surface.
The 2 forces are balanced, and instead of falling or flying away it would orbit.


Notice the water in the rotating container becomes concave when centrifugal forces are applied, the water surface does not convex to make an arch, a bow across its surface, does it?
And that is because of the direction of those forces.
Gravity is pulling it down while the centrifugal forces pushes it to the side.
To represent Earth better you need a force pulling it towards the centre (which is what causes it to adopt a roughly spherical shape) and one pushing it out.

Is this example better:

It is water in micro-gravity, where it is held together by surface tension instead of gravity. The surface tension tries to make it a sphere, or to have the water "fall to the lowest point"
while

If you spun that container to match earth's 1,000 MPH surface
Then you would be spinning it way to fast. You cannot honestly represent the force by spinning a much smaller container at the same tangential velocity.
To honestly and accurately represent it you would need to spin it between 0.1 and 1 mile per hour.

I bet the water would fly out the open top of the container. You'd have to put a lid on it to keep the liquid in the container. Bodies of water on earth don't have lids on them, do they?
I see you are back to claiming it should fly off.

You really need to make up your mind.

Once I found wiki change the Principle of Biogenesis to the hypothesis of biogenesis
Before you were claiming it was a law. What changed? Did you realise you were wrong?

And yes, the wiki does try to correct itself, unlike FE.

Number two, show me an case from earth's nature where water is obeying both forces, centrifugal and gravity, at the same time, BET YOU CAN'T!!!!!!!!
We have provided you a case where water is obeying both forces. Care to address that?

"do you know how much centrifugal force is acting on the water?"

Enough to allegedly bow water on earth to make this:
No. Gravity is what does the majority of the bowing. Gravity alone would pull Earth into a sphere.
The centrifugal force results in a slight (0.15%) bulge. This acceleration is a mere 0.03 m/s^2 at the equator.


But water at the equator looks like this, horizontally flat to plane earth across its surface:
You keep saying that, but you are yet to prove it. You are yet to demonstrate that it doesn't follow the curve of Earth.

Ocean water Senegal, Africa, right on the equator. I don't see centrifugal forces at work:
Because they are too small for you to detect, and they are at an equilibrium with gravity.

I have shown you'll bodies of water at the equator, where the centrifugal forces are said to be the strongest, that do not match water being subjected to centrifugal forces. Water at the equator is flat, level and horizontal across its surface, it does not bow in a curve, and still fall to a lower spot on earth.
No. They do match. You don't seem to understand what that means do you?
Matching doesn't mean it is that force alone that is acting.
The water at the equator acts just as you would expect it to on this spinning speeding Earth.

You are also yet to show it is flat rather than following the curve of Earth.

It doesn't fall to the lowest point on Earth. It is higher than at the poles, because of the centrifugal force.

See, that is what you would need to do to show it doesn't match. You would need to show that the equatorial radius is the same as the polar radius, and this has to be done to a level of uncertainty where you would expect to see the difference.
You are yet to do that.
Instead you take a picture of a tiny piece and say it looks flat.
Guess what? That doesn't contradict Earth being a spinning speeding ball at all.

Smart move, because there is no visual evidence from earth's nature that supports being on a spinning speeding ball. I really don't care what Newton thought he experienced. Obviously, he didn't investigate the physical condition of earth that well.
No. There is plenty. It has been provided to you and you just dismiss it or lie about it or ignore it.

What there is no evidence of is Earth being flat and motionless.
Yes, there are some observations which are consistent with both, but that isn't evidence for either.
You are the one that is ignoring the physical condition of Earth.

Water conforms to forces acting upon it:

"Science is real."
--They Might Be Giants

Another mountain where sun casts shadow upward. This makes FE model impossible. How can he sun be lower than the mountain?

https://www.reddit.com/r/mildlyinteresting/comments/5ba92u/mt_hood_casting_a_shadow_on_the_clouds_this/
"Science is real."
--They Might Be Giants

Water conforms to forces acting upon it:



Now all you have to do is prove that that is what is happening to earth physically with evidence from physical earth, good luck!

Another mountain where sun casts shadow upward. This makes FE model impossible. How can he sun be lower than the mountain?

https://www.reddit.com/r/mildlyinteresting/comments/5ba92u/mt_hood_casting_a_shadow_on_the_clouds_this/

Go back and look at my rebuttal to the previous mountain shadow claim. It proves a motionless platform for the mountain, not one moving at 1,600 feet per second. The mountain would not be in the same position long enough to cast any shadow of any recordable duration on a spinning ball.

Mountain shadows proving rotating earth, debunked, again! You'll need a new shtick!

?

frenat

  • 3548
Another mountain where sun casts shadow upward. This makes FE model impossible. How can he sun be lower than the mountain?

https://www.reddit.com/r/mildlyinteresting/comments/5ba92u/mt_hood_casting_a_shadow_on_the_clouds_this/

Go back and look at my rebuttal to the previous mountain shadow claim. It proves a motionless platform for the mountain, not one moving at 1,600 feet per second. The mountain would not be in the same position long enough to cast any shadow of any recordable duration on a spinning ball.

Mountain shadows proving rotating earth, debunked, again! You'll need a new shtick!
Because 1.5 degrees over 6 minutes is too fast?  Oh wait, no it isn't.  Just further proof you have no clue what you're talking about.

Now all you have to do is prove that that is what is happening to earth physically with evidence from physical earth, good luck!
I already provided a picture of it.

Go back and look at my rebuttal to the previous mountain shadow claim. It proves a motionless platform for the mountain, not one moving at 1,600 feet per second. The mountain would not be in the same position long enough to cast any shadow of any recordable duration on a spinning ball.

Mountain shadows proving rotating earth, debunked, again! You'll need a new shtick!
Do you mean where you spoued pure nonsense and got your ass handed to you, yet again?

If so, the conclusion was the same as it will be here, the upcast shadow is evidence of a round Earth.

It does not prove that the mountain isn't moving.
Remember, the camera and clouds are moving as well.

You are yet to explain why it couldn't case the shadow and than just asserting nonsense.

How about you go and try to do the math for the shadow to see what it would be like on a spinning ball vs a motionless plane?
Or do you need someone else to do it for you?

I give up.

Ah go on, one more go....

Did you look up Newton's Laws of motion? Have you tried to understand them - you must have done them at school. They explain all you misunderstandings and misconceptions.

Edit to add...

I'm doing forces/acceleration etc with my kids at the moment. I've been looking at that website I linked earlier. It really is excellent so thanks!

http://www.physicsclassroom.com/Physics-Tutorial/Newton-s-Laws

"I give up."

Smart move, because there is no visual evidence from earth's nature that supports being on a spinning speeding ball. I really don't care what Newton thought he experienced. Obviously, he didn't investigate the physical condition of earth that well.

http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/209805/rivers-that-flow-uphill-due-to-earths-rotation

Oopps. Some rivers flow upwards because the centrifugal force isn't exactly opposite to the gravitational force.

RIP.

*

disputeone

  • Ranters
  • 17929
  • Or should I?
That's funny curvature shouldn't be measurable left to right at sea level.

I've seen people measure a horizon drop with a theodolite but I think you don't know what you are talking about.

Whats next? Toilets flushing in different directions? Travelling west in a plane is faster than travelling east?

Edit, in hindsight it looks like the picture is on the piss, check your line again.

Travelling west in a plane is faster than travelling east because the earth is rotating. Go find out why rockets are launched from west to east. *high school physics*

Lmao.

Dude weak.

Inertial FoR, high school physics.

Can you elaborate on your claim of magic planes?

(What is it with people and magic planes?)
BOTD member

For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this.

The reason I am consistently personally attacked here.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69306.msg1960160#msg1960160