"On the rotating Globe, Mt Rainier would never be "on a 1,000 MPH platform"."
My gawd, start thinking about what you are saying. If Mt. Rainer is on a rotating globe, then it is on a rotating platform, the surface of globe earth.
Perhaps you should start thinking, just in general for once in your life, but especially about the crap you are saying.
You have shown yet again that you do not understand the difference between rotational and linear motion.
Yes, Mt Rainier would be on a rotating platform, but not one rotating at 1000 miles per hour.
The issue is, I'm correct about the shadow lasting only a second
No. You're not. Like always, you are full of shit.
The distance is quite irrelevant. What is relevant is the change in the angle of the sun, which is 15 degrees an hour. That dictates how far the shadow will move.
because the mountain, being on the rotating globe, is not going to stick around long enough to cast a shadow of any duration, especially one that last for 10 minutes or longer. In one second, the mountain will be 1,600 feet to the direction of spin, east.
Again, it wouldn't be.
Just like so many times before, your numbers are full of shit.
As pointed out before, Mt Rainer isn't going at 1000 miles per hour. Even if it was, that only equates to roughly 1466 feet, not 1600 feet.
Regardless, that doesn't matter, as the Earth and clouds and camera are all moving with it.
At that speed, the shadow would get shorter and shorter at a fast rate. Because the mountain, moving east, is moving towards the sun at 1,600 feet per-second. I don't know where you're from, but in my neck of the woods, that's pretty dang fast!
Except it isn't that fast in the grand scheme of things.
That "fast rate" would be roughly 15 degrees an hour.
Now, on a motionless plane earth, with a much smaller sun circling above at a slower speed, you would get that shadow effect, but certainly not with the mountain moving towards a rising sun at 1,600 feet pre-second.
What a shame that isn't the model that is presented. The sun on a flat Earth is alleged to move at a rate of 1000 miles per hour above the equator. During the southern summer it is moving even faster. See, that is a fatal flaw with lots of these BS excuses Feers come up with, it is actually far worse for the flat Earth.
As it is much closer, it will have a much greater effect.
But the much bigger issue is that the sun is always above the clouds, meaning an object below the clouds will never be able to cast a shadow on them.
With reality, the sun is so far away it isn't funny, 150 000 000 km. So even if it was moving at 1600 km/hr, that is nothing compared to the distance.
The real key, which is what actually moves the sun at any kind of noticeable rate, is not linear motion, it is rotation.
The Earth is rotating at an incredibly slow speed of 15 degrees an hour.
That means a shadow like that will last quite a while.
How about this, rather than repeating the same refuted bullshit, you tell us exactly how long a shadow like that should last on a ball Earth rotating at 15 degrees an hour?
My son got sent to the Principle's office when he was in 5th grade, 16 years ago, because he laughed at the science teacher when the teacher said we are moving close to a 1,000 MPH, while sitting in the classroom. The science teacher would not even entertain a discussion on the issue!My son saw the ludicrousness of the statement many years before it dawned on me. He and I have never had a conversation about FE, or RE, so I don't know where his revelation has lead him on the subject.
So your son was an idiot and infected you with his stupid?
There is nothing ludicrous about it at all. We don't feel motion.
Hopefully he has grown and realised his error.
Yep, you need to add one more unprovable excuse, hey?
Nope. Not unprovable. Something proven beyond any reasonable doubt.
Regardless, it is a part of the model, and the reason why Mt Rainer would be moving. If you wish to attack the model, it would be wise to not throw out the key parts which led to your conclusion.
You can if you open the window, or speed on a motorcycle.
Nope. Not feeling speed. That is feeling the motion of the atmosphere relative to you.
You achieve the same effect when riding on a motor cycle at 100 km/hr into the "stationary" air as you do while just sitting on a motorcycle in 100 km/hr wind.
So no, you are not feeling your speed, unless you wish to claim any time there is wind it is actually us flying through it.
an In motionless atmosphere, you cannot feel speed.
No. In an atmosphere moving with you, with no relative speed to you.
That means if you are travelling at 100 km/hr, the atmosphere is moving with you.
So, if I cannot feel speed while standing on earth, I'm not surrounded by a solid shell, keeping the atmosphere motionless
You don't need a shell to keep the atmosphere motionless. You wouldn't want to keep the atmosphere motionless. You would want to keep it moving with Earth. Earth does that just fine.
The shell is only required in a car or plane to protect you/the atmosphere inside the car from the atmosphere outside. For Earth, it is only the pathetic solar wind that would need to be protected from, and the atmosphere does that just fine.
then the correct conclusion is I'm not speeding at 1,000 MPH while standing on earth. What do you need to do, keep adding more unprovable excuses?
No. The correct conclusion (from that bit alone, not considering all the other evidence) is that the atmosphere is moving with Earth, at an unknown speed which may be 0, as you cannot determine speed from that.
"if you claim again that the air should be stationary around the spinning globe, you have to explain why that has to be that way."
Can you point out where I said the atmosphere on a spinning globe should be stationary? How can you have 0 MPH winds with an atmosphere said to be in motion at 1,000 MPH?
By repeatedly appealing to bullshit like a motorbike travelling at speed through a "stationary" atmosphere as an example of when you can feel speed.
That would mean Earth is moving while the atmosphere is not.
But yes, in reality, the atmosphere is moving with Earth.
How do you have spherical planets spinning and speeding through the non-vacuum of space, maintain a consistent path without dealing with the Magnus effect of curving off path? I teach my baseball players how to use the Magnus effect to their advantage. Insert unprovable excuse here......................................................
We don't.
We have them doing so through the vacuum of space, meaning no magnus effect.
Your ball players are dealing with an atmosphere with a pressure of roughly 100 kPa. The most noticeable pressure in the vacuum of space is the solar wind, with a pressure on the order of 1 nPa (also note that a lot of that is due to its motion relative to Earth). 100 000 000 000 000 times for the ball.
Your ball players have balls that spin at a rate of roughly 2000 RPM, while Earth is spinning at a rate of 0.0007 RPM. 2 900 000 times for the ball.
Your ball players have a ball with a mass of roughly 150 g, while Earth has a mass on the order of 10^24 kg. 4*10^25 times for Earth.
Your ball players have a ball with a radius of 3.5 cm, while Earth has a radius of 6371 km. 200 000 000 times for Earth.
Your ball is travelling at 85 miles per hour, while the Solar wind is travelling at 300 km/s. 7900 times for Earth.
The acceleration due to the magnus effect will be the force due to it divided by mass.
The force due to it is proportional to density (which is proportional to pressure), the velocity, the angular velocity and the radius squared.
That means the acceleration is proportional to P*v*omega*r^2/m.
Combining all that, the acceleration due to the Magnus effect for the ball is much more than that for Earth. Around 3.6*10^25 times as much for the ball that it is for Earth.
So it wouldn't produce any significant effect. There are far greater disturbances in space.
So unless you want to count factual differences about the situations, the Magnus effect, or the math based upon all that as an unprovable excuse, we don't need an excuse.
So now what will you do in response? Will you just ignore it, dismiss it as goobly gloop, claim math is a lie, your unprovable BS of space allegedly not being a vacuum, bitching about space not being a perfect vacuum or come up with some other ignorant bullshit excuse?
The path of the planets isn't consistent, they very slightly, they are perturbed. That allowed us to discover some planets by observing the path of one, and noticing it was being perturbed by another, calculating where that other should be, and then finding it there.