IF THE EARTH IS AT REST, CAN SHE STILL BE ROUND?

Current Gold Price in US Dollars = 40 000 $ per 1 kg

So, if i buy 1 ton gold somewhere in the vicinity of the equator i can make a profit which value would be equivalent to the price of 10 kg gold if i sell it in Longyearbyen (Svalbard - Norway)...

You don't believe me?

The centrifugal force on your body at the equator is 0.034 m/s2 times the mass of your body. The centrifugal force at the poles is zero.

Your total weight at sea level at the equator (gravity minus centrifugal force) is therefore 9.764 m/s2 times your mass, whereas your weight is 9.863 m/s2 times your mass at the poles. If we use a more accurate model (such as taking into account the shape of the continents) these numbers will be slightly different, but the overall point will be the same: you weigh about 1% less at the equator than at the poles. If you weigh 200 pounds (90.7 kg) at the North Pole, you will weigh 198 pounds (89.8 kg) at the equator. Note that we have focused on the equator and the poles as the extremes, but the same effect applies to all latitudes. You weigh slightly less in Mexico City than in New York City, as Mexico City is closer to the equator.

Let's make a fortune together!

ok here we can see that you out of the reality.

theoretical you would make a profit of 0.15% according to weight difference.

you only have to buy the gold.
transport it to sweden
melt it down and cast new barres
and than sell the gold.

your homework is now to calculate the cost of all that.

You weigh slightly less in Mexico City than in New York City, as Mexico City is closer to the equator.

This is true. I suspect you'll find that gold merchants are well aware of this though. Weighing will compare with known masses. So don't spend your fortune just yet...

Quote from: cikljamas on May 12, 2017, 09:34:15 AM

Current Gold Price in US Dollars = 40 000 $ per 1 kg

So, if i buy 1 ton gold somewhere in the vicinity of the equator i can make a profit which value would be equivalent to the price of 10 kg gold if i sell it in Longyearbyen (Svalbard - Norway)...

You don't believe me?

The centrifugal force on your body at the equator is 0.034 m/s2 times the mass of your body. The centrifugal force at the poles is zero.

Your total weight at sea level at the equator (gravity minus centrifugal force) is therefore 9.764 m/s2 times your mass, whereas your weight is 9.863 m/s2 times your mass at the poles. If we use a more accurate model (such as taking into account the shape of the continents) these numbers will be slightly different, but the overall point will be the same: you weigh about 1% less at the equator than at the poles. If you weigh 200 pounds (90.7 kg) at the North Pole, you will weigh 198 pounds (89.8 kg) at the equator. Note that we have focused on the equator and the poles as the extremes, but the same effect applies to all latitudes. You weigh slightly less in Mexico City than in New York City, as Mexico City is closer to the equator.

Let's make a fortune together!

ok here we can see that you out of the reality.

theoretical you would make a profit of 0.15% according to weight difference.

you only have to buy the gold.
transport it to sweden
melt it down and cast new barres
and than sell the gold.

your homework is now to calculate the cost of all that.

So, according to you 1 % = 0,15 %
Congratulations!!! You've got more inventive imagination than Newton and Einstein together!
lol

“Today’s scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality.” Nikola Tesla (1856-1943)

"The scientists from Franklin to Morse were clear thinkers and did not produce erroneous theories. The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane." Nikola Tesla

Who ever heard of a person, after constructing some intricate piece of workmanship, explaining the order and nature of its mechanism entirely different from the truth to suit the capacity of his hearers? What had the earth to revolve round before the sun was made, if we are to believe the Newtonian theory?

IN ADDITION :

One guy asked me what is my stance on the nature of gravity, so, let him consider this solution for that matter :

Once it is realised that electrons spin at speeds in excess of the speed of light, a new paradigm is born. The idea simply is that the elementary particles, by their nature, are absorbing ether all the time. This influx is what gravity is. As ether is absorbed two things happen. (1) The process enables the elementary particles to maintain their spin, and (2) Simultaneously, this etheric energy, probably stemming from what some physicists call the zero point energy realm, which is a vast reservoir of untapped energy, is transformed into electromagnetic energy. That is Grand Unification, Einstein’s dream of how to combine gravity with electromagnetism.

Tesla understood ether theory a lot better than Einstein did, and he dismissed Einstein’s famous equation E=mc2 as mathematical poppycock.

A large number of thinking physicists believe that an ether of sorts exists, and that forces of some type may transcend lightspeed. Once one begins to study ether theory, profound new insights concerning such things as particle spin, zero point energy, the fundamental structure of matter and space, the constancy of lightspeed and the link between gravity and electromagnetism begin to emerge.

Current Gold Price in US Dollars = 40 000 $ per 1 kg

So, if i buy 1 ton gold somewhere in the vicinity of the equator i can make a profit which value would be equivalent to the price of 10 kg gold if i sell it in Longyearbyen (Svalbard - Norway)...

You don't believe me?

Nope. But do go on...

The centrifugal force on your body at the equator is 0.034 m/s2 times the mass of your body. The centrifugal force at the poles is zero.

That looks about right. Very good!

Your total weight at sea level at the equator (gravity minus centrifugal force) is therefore 9.764 m/s2 times your mass, whereas your weight is 9.863 m/s2 times your mass at the poles.

Why is the difference between these accelerations 0.099 m/s² instead of 0.034 m/s² as reported above? [I know why. Do you?]

If we use a more accurate model (such as taking into account the shape of the continents) these numbers will be slightly different, but the overall point will be the same:

There is a much more significant factor than that. Do you know what it is?

you weigh about 1% less at the equator than at the poles.

Actually, you weigh about 0.5% less at the equator than at the poles due to the above and yet another factor, but let's ignore that.

If you weigh 200 pounds (90.7 kg) at the North Pole, you will weigh 198 pounds (89.8 kg) at the equator. Note that we have focused on the equator and the poles as the extremes, but the same effect applies to all latitudes. You weigh slightly less in Mexico City than in New York City, as Mexico City is closer to the equator.

Let's make a fortune together!

That's an interesting idea, but it has some problems. One would be the obvious cost of transporting a ton of gold between, say, Quito, Ecuador and Svalbard (or Moscow, ...). I doubt you'd want to just call some random freight company to haul it for you. A cube of gold with a mass of 1000 kg would be about 40 cm on each edge but worth about $40 million (using your value). A shipment that small and valuable could be easily heisted; you'd need some way to keep it secure in transit, which will not be cheap.

An even bigger problem is that 1,000 kg is mass, not weight, and it's the same everywhere. Typically, precious metals are weighed on a balance, which compares your mass with known masses. Even if the weight changes, you don't have any more (or less, unless some gets stolen) gold than you did before.

Sorry.

Quote from: Canadabear on May 12, 2017, 10:07:28 AM

Quote from: cikljamas on May 12, 2017, 09:34:15 AM

Current Gold Price in US Dollars = 40 000 $ per 1 kg

So, if i buy 1 ton gold somewhere in the vicinity of the equator i can make a profit which value would be equivalent to the price of 10 kg gold if i sell it in Longyearbyen (Svalbard - Norway)...

You don't believe me?

The centrifugal force on your body at the equator is 0.034 m/s2 times the mass of your body. The centrifugal force at the poles is zero.

Your total weight at sea level at the equator (gravity minus centrifugal force) is therefore 9.764 m/s2 times your mass, whereas your weight is 9.863 m/s2 times your mass at the poles. If we use a more accurate model (such as taking into account the shape of the continents) these numbers will be slightly different, but the overall point will be the same: you weigh about 1% less at the equator than at the poles. If you weigh 200 pounds (90.7 kg) at the North Pole, you will weigh 198 pounds (89.8 kg) at the equator. Note that we have focused on the equator and the poles as the extremes, but the same effect applies to all latitudes. You weigh slightly less in Mexico City than in New York City, as Mexico City is closer to the equator.

Let's make a fortune together!

ok here we can see that you out of the reality.

theoretical you would make a profit of 0.15% according to weight difference.

you only have to buy the gold.
transport it to sweden
melt it down and cast new barres
and than sell the gold.

your homework is now to calculate the cost of all that.

So, according to you 1 % = 0,15 %
Congratulations!!! You've got more inventive imagination than Newton and Einstein together!
lol

the centrifugal force due to earth rotation is appr. 0.3%
i assume in sweden (that is closer to the nothpole and the rotational speed is smaller) it is appr. half of that
therefor 0.15%

how did you calculate your value of 1%, please explain

“Today’s scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality.” Nikola Tesla (1856-1943)

"The scientists from Franklin to Morse were clear thinkers and did not produce erroneous theories. The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane." Nikola Tesla

and that what you are claiming, you are the "scientist" that does not think clearly and do not see the reality.

Who ever heard of a person, after constructing some intricate piece of workmanship, explaining the order and nature of its mechanism entirely different from the truth to suit the capacity of his hearers? What had the earth to revolve round before the sun was made, if we are to believe the Newtonian theory?

the sun was not made, it formed from the material in the center of the early solar system. the earth and all other planets formed later.

IN ADDITION :

One guy asked me what is my stance on the nature of gravity, so, let him consider this solution for that matter :

Once it is realised that electrons spin at speeds in excess of the speed of light, a new paradigm is born. The idea simply is that the elementary particles, by their nature, are absorbing ether all the time. This influx is what gravity is. As ether is absorbed two things happen. (1) The process enables the elementary particles to maintain their spin, and (2) Simultaneously, this etheric energy, probably stemming from what some physicists call the zero point energy realm, which is a vast reservoir of untapped energy, is transformed into electromagnetic energy. That is Grand Unification, Einstein’s dream of how to combine gravity with electromagnetism.

Tesla understood ether theory a lot better than Einstein did, and he dismissed Einstein’s famous equation E=mc2 as mathematical poppycock.

A large number of thinking physicists believe that an ether of sorts exists, and that forces of some type may transcend lightspeed. Once one begins to study ether theory, profound new insights concerning such things as particle spin, zero point energy, the fundamental structure of matter and space, the constancy of lightspeed and the link between gravity and electromagnetism begin to emerge.

the whole ether thing is explained, it simply does not exist.

Current Gold Price in US Dollars = 40 000 $ per 1 kg

So, if i buy 1 ton gold somewhere in the vicinity of the equator i can make a profit which value would be equivalent to the price of 10 kg gold if i sell it in Longyearbyen (Svalbard - Norway)...

Really?  You do that! 

You don't believe me?

No, I do not believe you!

The centrifugal force on your body at the equator is 0.034 m/s² times the mass of your body. The centrifugal force at the poles is zero.

Yes, that is the figure often quoted, though the earth rotates once in about 23.93 hours, not 24 hours.

Your total weight at sea level at the equator (gravity minus centrifugal force) is therefore 9.764 m/s² times your mass, whereas your weight is 9.863 m/s² times your mass at the poles.

Mass (in kg) times acceleration (in m/s²) gives the result in Newtons, not kilograms, but who cares?

If we use a more accurate model (such as taking into account the shape of the continents) these numbers will be slightly different, but the overall point will be the same: you weigh about 1% less at the equator than at the poles. If you weigh 200 pounds (90.7 kg) at the North Pole, you will weigh 198 pounds (89.8 kg) at the equator.

Near enough, though he accepted figures are 9.832 m/s² at the North Pole and 9.780 m/s² at the Equator, due to both the centripetal acceleration and the difference is polar and equatorial radii (6,356,752 m and 6,371,000 m, resp).
But the difference is nearer 0.5%, not 1%.

And if you weigh 200 pounds (90.7 kg) at the North Pole, you will weigh 189 pounds (90.2 kg) at the equator.
NOT 89.8 kg.

Note that we have focused on the equator and the poles as the extremes, but the same effect applies to all latitudes. You weigh slightly less in Mexico City than in New York City, as Mexico City is closer to the equator.

Let's make a fortune together!

But all that is a mere bagatelle compared to the claim that you somehow end up with more gold in Svalbard.

So, you waste your money transporting you gold from Quito to Svalbard and try to sell it for a profit!

If it helps, today in Quito the gold price per gram is USD 39.33.
I can't find the price in Svalbard, but in Oslo it is 338.08 NOK per gram.
You can worry about currency conversions, but it might be more that 0.5%!

Now you might find that you are being taken for a big ride!


Gold and everything else of any value is sold by mass and that does not change.
Accurate force reading scales must be calibrated, depending on location.
Balances that compare masses are not location dependent.

You might learn a bit from: and
But, I am still amazed that someone of your supposed knowledge can be so ignorant of these things.

As with most flat-earthers, it seems a case of "I can't understand the Globe, and that proves the earth flat!"

And in your case, it seems to go further and is "I can't understand Physics, and that proves the earth flat!"

The point is that the nature of gravity is something quite different from what you think it is, and that the rotation of the earth doesn't exist.

No, it isn't. Not in the slightest. Your hypothetical example showed nothing of the sort.

Since the rotation of the earth doesn't exist, the earth is flat.

No, the rotation does exist and Earth is not flat.
You are yet to provide any evidence for either of those baseless claims of yours. (No, your refuted nonsense doesn't count as evidence).

JackBlack corroborated this truth

No. I didn't.

on the basis of hypothetical absence of earth's motion.

Again, I didn't.
I showed that there was motion.

However, an absence of earth's motion is not hypothetical at all, but absolutely factual!

No, it is purely fictional.

A single thing? Hm... it is hard to constrain it to just one single thing (because there are countless examples of that sort) :

Well, how about you try a single thing at once rather than spouting a load of crap to try and bury your opponents with bullshit?
For example, you can start with you admitting you were wrong about your con man's cannon experiment.

Besides the fact that when the moon is only a few hours old, and sometimes until past the first quarter, the naked eye is able to see through her body to the light shining on the other side, both fixed stars and planets have been seen through a considerable part of her substance, as proved by the following quotations :

No. It hasn't.
No one has ever been able to see through the moon.

"On the 15th of March, 1848, when the moon was seven and a half days old, I never saw her unillumined
disc so beautifully. . . . On my first looking into the telescope a star of about the 7th magnitude was some minutes of a degree distant from the moon's dark limb. I saw that its occultation by the moon was inevitable. . . . The star, instead of disappearing the moment the moon's edge came in contact with it, apparently glided on the moon's dark face, as if it had been seen through a transparent moon; or, as if a star were between me and the moon. . . .I have seen a similar apparent projection several times. . . .
The cause of this phenomenon is involved in impenetrable mystery."

So you provide us with a quotation with no reference. Good job.

Oh right, it's from your con man Row Boat.
No wonder you didn't want to tell us who it was from, as that would make us instantly dismiss it as pure bullshit.
He is quite happy to blatantly lie to try and pedal his bullshit.
Why should I think of this quote as anything other than a blatant lie?
Especially when I can look at the moon myself and see it obstructing stars which should be there.

They want you to believe that the Moon's rotation is perfectly synchronized with its orbit so that's why we only ever see one side of the Moon

No. They don't.
They want you to believe that the moon is tidally locked to Earth such that each time it orbits Earth it rotates about its axis once.
This is a result of tidal locking, and is what all the evidence shows.
But due to numerous factors, it isn't perfect, and you can actually see a bit more than one half of the moon over its orbit.
Perhaps this example shows it best:

rather than conclude the obvious - that the Moon is simply NOT rotating

So what is it doing? Shaking around?

Even in the retarded FE model, it has to rotate, just about a different axis to keep the same "side" facing "north".

Moreover, they had to slow down the Moon's speed by 58,870 mph AND reverse its direction to West-East to successfully sell their phony heliocentricity system to a gullible public.

No. They didn't need to change the moon's speed or its direction.
How about you stop just spouting baseless crap and try backing some things up, because so far all you have is baseless claim after baseless claim.

I don't think there is one person in many, many thousands - regardless of education - who knows that the Copernican Model had to turn the Moon's observable direction around and give it a new speed to accommodate the phases and eclipses.

You mean had to note that we observe the moon move relative to us and thus need to adjust it to a non-rotating Earth centred frame?

Unless you can construct a rational argument yourself regarding this, I will skip the rest of this crap about the moon allegedly going backwards.

The light of the moon, though concentrated by the most powerful burning-glass, is incapable of raising the temperature of the most delicate thermometer.

So? You have the moon scattering the light from the sun.
Just what effect do you think moonlight should have?
Go and work it out for us.
If you can't, admit that and I might try some math for you.

Until then, I will dismiss the rest of this as just ignorant crap of not observing an effect that shouldn't be there.

In the "Lancet" (Medical Journal), for March 14th, 1856, particulars are given of several experiments which proved that the moon's rays when concentrated, actually reduced the temperature upon a thermometer more than eight degrees.

But this is a direct contradiction of your prior claims.
You have previously stated that there was no effect. Even concentrating the moons rays 6000 (which then magically changed to 3000) times, there was NO EFFECT. Yet now you are here claiming that the moon's rays produce a cooling effect.
Guess what? No effect means no cooling either. Try again.

When we are watching such phenomena (LUNAR ECLIPSES) during the winter, we should be aware that when the sun rises up (and it's winter time = the earth is TILTED AWAY from the sun) our position is on the other side of the earth (in relation to the moon) so that we can't seen the moon in the same time while the sun is on the horizon.

No. You can.
The sun will illuminate slightly more than half of Earth, and the eclipsed moon will be in the shadow of Earth.
Refraction will make both objects appear roughly 0.5 degrees higher, or roughly their angular size. So you can hypothetically have both, just above the horizon.
Of course, going to higher alitutdes makes that even better as the horizon is lower and thus you can see the sun and moon together for even longer, even when they are in direct opposition.

Geometrically impossible.

Nope. Compeltely possible, at least when you take the sizes and distances into account.

This video shows one such situation

Except it has the moon set as the sun rises. So not really helping your case.

Meanwhile, on a flat Earth, the moon and sun should never set.
That is geometrically impossible.
There is no way that the sun (always being 5000km above some point between the tropics) should ever get anywhere near the horizon.
Yet it does.
How can we see the sun set on a flat Earth?

---Watch this illustration : http://puu.sh/qBX8P/dd007897fc.png and try to explain to me
HOW SUCH GEOMETRY CAN PRODUCE EARTH'S SHADOW IN THE UPPER PART OF THE MOON???

How am I meant to watch a picture?
It is a still image.
It is also horribly not to scale and thus can distort many things.

So how about you do the math, properly, including refraction, to show it shouldn't be possible?

Many have laboured hard to make it appear that these phenomena are the result of what they have assumed to be light reflected from the earth

What phenomenon?

The sun's light thrown back from the moon to the earth and returned from the earth to the moon! It seems never to have occurred to these "students of imagination" that this so-called "earth-light" is most intense when the moon is youngest, and therefore illuminates the earth the least. When the operating cause is least intense, the effect is much the greatest.

Oh right, you are talking about seeing the "dark side" of the moon.
When is the dark side of the moon normally out? when the moon and the sun are on the same side of Earth or the opposite?
I'll give you a clue, it is when the sun and moon are on the same side of Earth.

So sure, the moon is illuminating us the least, but the sun is directly illuminating Earth, with light which can easily scatter/reflect off Earth and then go straight to the moon.

Why do you assume it is the light from the moon that is reflecting off Earth to illuminate the dark side of the moon?
In fact, the alleged opperating cause is least intense at a new moon, when the sun and moon are basically in the same spot, and thus the dark side is directly facing Earth and is in quite a good spot to see a full Earth. As such, at this time, the dark side of the moon will be viewing/being illuminated by a full Earth.
So this is when the actual cause would be the most intense.
Meanwhile, at the point of a half moon, the moon would only be viewing a half Earth, that is only half the surface of Earth that the moon can see will be illuminated by the sun.

So the actual operating cause will be least intense/effective at a full moon, when the moon would be viewing a full Earth.

Why pretend that this is light from the moon which is being reflected onto Earth and then back to the moon and back to Earth, instead of the far simpler case of having it being reflected from Earth to the moon and then back?

The only explanation which has been given of this phenomenon is the refraction caused by the earth's atmosphere.

So are you talking about the red moon during the lunar eclipse?
If so, it is completely sound.

but on carefully examining the subject, it is found to be utterly inadequate

Bullshit.
I assume this will just be more nonsense.

the refraction of an object and that of a shadow are in opposite directions.

Citation needed.
The shadow and refraction are separate phenomenon.

An object by refraction is bent upwards; but the shadow of any object is bent downwards, as will be seen by the following very simple experiment. Take a plain white shallow basin, and place it ten or twelve inches from a light in such a position that the shadow of the edge of the basin touches the centre of the bottom. Hold a rod vertically over and on the edge of the shadow, to denote its true position. Now let water be gradually poured into the basin

And this is your problem.
You aren't treating the Earth as an object that is casting a shadow and refracting the light.
Instead, Earth is just casting the shadow and the space between Earth and the moon is magically refracting the light.

It is quite simple, as light enters the atmosphere, going through denser and denser air, it curves downwards.
As such, the light coming from the sun is bent towards the centre of Earth and thus the centre of Earth's shadow.

Now if you think any of those are good, why don't you just pick it and focus on it to discuss.
If you need to repeatedly bring up loads of things rather than discuss just one at a time, it shows you have no confidence in any of them.

Current Gold Price in US Dollars = 40 000 $ per 1 kg

So, if i buy 1 ton gold somewhere in the vicinity of the equator i can make a profit which value would be equivalent to the price of 10 kg gold if i sell it in Longyearbyen (Svalbard - Norway)...

No. At least not with any decent place.
They will use scales which are calibrated to give you the mass of the object, not its weight.

If you notice, the price of gold is based upon kg, not N.
It is based upon the mass of gold, not its weight.

So no, you won't be making any profit as you are selling the same mass of gold.

NEW QUESTION : Can someone explain to us how come that in a low earth's orbit centrifugal force is strong enough to cancel out gravitational pull so that astronauts can float, but a little bit closer to the earth cetrifugal force is not strong enough to produce same result?

I can explain;  learn how orbiting works.

"On the 15th of March, 1848, when the moon was seven and a half days old, I never saw her unillumined
disc so beautifully. . . . On my first looking into the telescope a star of about the 7th magnitude was some minutes of a degree distant from the moon's dark limb. I saw that its occultation by the moon was inevitable. . . . The star, instead of disappearing the moment the moon's edge came in contact with it, apparently glided on the moon's dark face, as if it had been seen through a transparent moon; or, as if a star were between me and the moon. . . .I have seen a similar apparent projection several times. . . .

Do you have a source for this?  Has anyone else ever seen this?  Have you seen this?  Why have I never seen this? 

If the rotation of the earth is not a big deal (but i can assure you that your spinning imagination is a big deal) then how do you comment following consequences of hypothetical switching off gravity (which strength doesn't have to cancel out more than just 0,3 % of centrifugal force due to the rotation of the earth) for only 5 short seconds :

Gravity’s 5-second Absence

Without gravity, everything becomes weightless. Instantly, nothing would be held in place.

Now, I can guess what you’re thinking; you may be thinking that as soon as gravity disappears, you would start floating and flying over everything – cities, maybe even entire countries. It would be so awesome, right?

If gravity "switched off" for five seconds, things that weren't attached to the surface of the earth would rise above the surface to about 1/2 meter (at the equator - less at other latitudes) due to the centrifugal acceleration.  When gravity "switched back on", it would take about 200 milliseconds for it all to fall back to the ground.[nb]Those are back-of-an-envelope calculations, and I'm tired. I think they're right, but will amend this post, keeping the original, if it turns out there's an error or errors.[/nb]

If you think that, you’re in for quite a surprise… and not a pleasant one.

In the absence of gravity, you wouldn’t float around aimlessly, instead, you’d be like tumbleweeds, fast-moving tumbleweeds. This would not only be you; everything would start moving, including buildings, automobiles, houses, trees…everything would start tumbling and rolling madly around the Earth. This is because the Earth would still be spinning, quite rapidly, as it does all the time. Remember, it’s gravity that holds everything in place.

I have no idea why you think this. The earth rotates quite slowly - half the rate of the hour hand on a 12-hour analog clock.

However, this is hardly a big deal, when compared to the other types of destruction that an absence of gravity can cause. You can expect an apocalypse on a global scale, as everything would start to detach from its roots and begin rolling, tumbling and flailing randomly, somewhat like what they show in those epic destruction movies, except much worse.

It would certainly be disruptive. There's no reason to think there would be rolling, tumbling, or any of that other mayhem, though.

Without gravity, Earth’s atmosphere would also disappear. This means that there would be a sudden and drastic change in air pressure, which would mean an immediate and simultaneous rupture of the inner ears of every human being on the planet. Scary stuff!

Pressure would certainly drop. I doubt the entire atmosphere could escape in only five seconds, but you're right: it would not be pleasant.

Oh! There’s one more thing that I forgot. We need oxygen to breathe, and without the atmosphere, there will be no oxygen on Earth. Without that necessary oxygen, life will cease to exist on our beloved planet.

Yes, the absence of gravity would only be 5 seconds, but there wouldn’t be many people (if any) left to enjoy the earth.

It's a darn good thing that doesn't happen, then, isn't it?

I repeat :

In any  rotational system, the  larger is  the radius r, the greater is the angular velocity V, the greater is the angular momentum (m V r),

You're making the same mistake sandokhan made a year ago until he was corrected (and he really hated that... he had a tantrum for months afterward, but was still wrong!) Angular momentum depends on the angular velocity and moment of inertia, which depends on the distribution of mass with r and not of the mass alone.

and the greater is the moment of inertia (m r ^ 2), where m is the mass. SUPPOSED RADIUS OF THE EARTH IS QUITE LARGE SO TO BE ABLE TO PRODUCE QUITE LARGE ANGULAR MOMENTUM, ISN'T IT?

At least you already knew such a thing as moment of inertia exists.

Moment of inertia of a solid sphere of uniform density rotating about an axis of symmetry is (2/5) m r², not m r².

Still, yes, the angular momentum of the rotating earth is quite large in human terms. So?

ON TOP OF THAT : The orbital angular momentum is over 7 orders of magnitude greater than earth's rotational angular momentum.

Sounds possible. So?

THE QUESTION : Why do astronauts float in outer space?

AN ANSWER : A short layman answer would be there is zero gravity acting on them (which is wrong because they are in earth's SOI they are just counteracting gravity with momentum due to centrifugal force).

NEW QUESTION : Can someone explain to us how come that in a low earth's orbit centrifugal force is strong enough to cancel out gravitational pull so that astronauts can float, but a little bit closer to the earth cetrifugal force is not strong enough to produce same result?

How much closer? If your speed doesn't increase as you get closer, then you're not in orbit.

IN ADDITION : Both gravitational attraction, proposed by Newton, and “curved” space, used by Einstein to explain this attraction, are such totally preposterous concepts that it is difficult to understand how they were able to gain any kind of acceptance in the scientific community.

It's because they work. Your opinion of them makes no difference whatsoever.

READ MORE : http://www.circlon-theory.com/HTML/mythofgravattr.html

All these theories are total bullshit, i tell you!!!

Thanks for sharing your opinion. Do you feel better now?

The myth of gravity was only invented to explain why we don't fly off of the big spinning ball.

The theory of gravitation was devised to explain observations. It does a dandy job of it, too. It's not perfect - General Relativity is more complete and explains some of the extreme cases better - but for most cases with the scale and dynamics of our solar system (and more), it does a great job.

Every time someone points out that what we observe doesn't match what we are told they give gravity new magical powers to explain it.

Can you give an example of these "new magical powers"?

"On the 15th of March, 1848, when the moon was seven and a half days old, I never saw her unillumined
disc so beautifully. . . . On my first looking into the telescope a star of about the 7th magnitude was some minutes of a degree distant from the moon's dark limb. I saw that its occultation by the moon was inevitable. . . . The star, instead of disappearing the moment the moon's edge came in contact with it, apparently glided on the moon's dark face, as if it had been seen through a transparent moon; or, as if a star were between me and the moon. . . .I have seen a similar apparent projection several times. . . .
The cause of this phenomenon is involved in impenetrable mystery."

You didn't say who this was, perhaps out of embarrassment, so I'll do it for you: it's Rowbotham, Earth Not a Globe, a thoroughly discredited source.

"They want you to believe that the Moon's rotation is perfectly synchronized with its orbit so that's why we only ever see one side of the Moon, rather than conclude the obvious - that the Moon is simply NOT rotating. Moreover, they had to slow down the Moon's speed by 58,870 mph AND reverse its direction to West-East to successfully sell their phony heliocentricity system to a gullible public. I don't think there is one person in many, many thousands - regardless of education - who knows that the Copernican Model had to turn the Moon's observable direction around and give it a new speed to accommodate the phases and eclipses." -Marshall Hall

Marshall Hall, a source so loony that Answers In Genesis calls his writing "gobbledegook" with "reasoning so erroneous at many points that one has to question whether the book was actually intended as some sort of weird parody or satire"

“The Moon presented a special math problem for the construction of the heliocentricity model. The only way to make the Moon fit in with the other assumptions was to reverse its direction from that of what everyone who has ever lived has seen it go. The math model couldn’t just stop the Moon like it did the Sun, that wouldn’t work. And it couldn’t let it continue to go East to West as we see it go, either at the same speed or at a different speed. The only option was to reverse its observed East to West direction and change its speed from about 64,000 miles an hour to about 2,200 miles an hour. This reversal along with the change in speed were unavoidable assumptions that needed to be adopted if the model was to have a chance of mimicking reality." -Bernard Brauer

Who is this Bernard Brauer person anyway?  The only results of a search online are copies of this quote and his name.  No other information.  Is he even a real person, or just another fever dream of Eric Dubay?

4. "The light of the moon, though concentrated by the most powerful burning-glass, is incapable of raising the temperature of the most delicate thermometer. M. De la Hire collected the rays of the full moon when on the meridian, by means of a burning-glass 35 inches in diameter, and made them fall on the bulb of a delicate air-thermometer. No effect was produced though the lunar rays by this glass were concentrated 300 times.

Professor Forbes concentrated the moon's light by a lens 30 inches in diameter, its focal distance being about 41 inches, and having a power of concentration exceeding 6000 times. The image of the moon, which was only 18 hours past full, and less than two hours from the meridian, was brilliantly thrown by this lens on the extremity of a commodious thermopile. Although the observations were made in the most unexceptional manner, and (supposing that half the rays were reflected, dispersed and absorbed), though the light of the moon was concentrated 3000 times, not the slightest thermo effect was produced."

In the "Lancet" (Medical Journal), for March 14th, 1856, particulars are given of several experiments which proved that the moon's rays when concentrated, actually reduced the temperature upon a thermometer more than eight degrees.

Da la Hire did his thing in 1705, if he existed at all.  I found a reference to Professor Forbes in a book dated 1840, which means he did his thing earlier than that.  The supposed experiment in the Lancet (I say "supposed" because nobody has ever produced it, this is another claim for which our only source is Rowbotham) is from 1856.  It is an article of faith among flat earthers that the Lancet thing exists, but nobody can produce it.  I wonder why?  Is it possibly because this is yet another thing that Rowbotham made up completely?

Many have laboured hard to make it appear that these phenomena are the result of what they have assumed to be light reflected from the earth--"Earth light," "the reflection of a reflection." The sun's light thrown back from the moon to the earth and returned from the earth to the moon! It seems never to have occurred to these "students of imagination" that this so-called "earth-light" is most intense when the moon is youngest, and therefore illuminates the earth the least. When the operating cause is least intense, the effect is much the greatest.

That's not what is being said at all.  It's not a triple reflection, "sun's light thrown back from the moon to the earth and returned from the earth to the moon".  It's the sunlight on the earth reflected to the moon and back again.  It's a double reflection, and the dark part of the moon is facing the fully lit face of the earth.  Far from "the operating cause is least intense, the effect is much the greatest", the fact is that the operating cause (sunlight on the earth) is MOST intense during the new moon.

Yes. I saw it before.
It clearly shows it moving along, keeping its inertia, not landing where it launched like you claim it should.

Going to admit you were wrong?

Quote from: cikljamas on May 13, 2017, 04:40:56 AM

Yes. I saw it before.
It clearly shows it moving along, keeping its inertia, not landing where it launched like you claim it should.

Going to admit you were wrong?

It seems that i have to slow down the motion of the ball :



Don't you notice that the ball falls at the left side of a pretty wide funnel...

Had this con demonstrator used narrower funnel the ball would have fallen behind the funnel instead of inside the funnel, isn't that obvious to you (and to everyone else)?

Let alone using larger ball (or larger and lighter ball or larger and heavier ball) so that the air resistance exerted on the ball would be larger (larger and lighter ball) or that the inertia moment would be larger (larger and heavier ball) since I = r^2*m

It seems that i have to slow down the motion of the ball :



Don't you notice that the ball falls at the left side of a pretty wide funnel...

Had this con demonstrator used narrower funnel the ball would have fallen behind the funnel instead of inside the funnel, isn't that obvious to you (and to everyone else)?

What point are you trying to make here?

Let alone using larger ball (or larger and lighter ball or larger and heavier ball) so that the air resistance exerted on the ball would be larger (larger and lighter ball) or that the inertia moment would be larger (larger and heavier ball) since I = r^2*m

The inertia moment you refer to relates to rotating bodies. What relevance do think it has here?

It seems that i have to slow down the motion of the ball :



Don't you notice that the ball falls at the left side of a pretty wide funnel...

And it still proves inertia. And drag.

How do you explain the balls movement without inertia at all? It should stay where... Seriously, without inertia it would have fallen directly back down with infinite accele... Without inertia nothing in the universe would work. Neither in the real one, nor in the flat one.

It would certainly be disruptive. There's no reason to think there would be rolling, tumbling, or any of that other mayhem, though.

It would be very disruptive, similarly as if the earth stopped to rotate (of course there's no such thing as the rotation of the earth...)...Use your imagination : you are moving 460 m/s (at the equator), and the only thing which holds you on the surface of the earth (and prevents you to fly off, that is to say : to proceed to move in a straight (tangential) line), suddenly disappears... So, the earth continues to rotate, but you are lunched in the air and after 5 seconds you (and everything else) are already translated 2300 m in a straight (tangential) line...

The question is this : isn't the gravitational force (whatever the true nature of gravity is) too weak to cancel out imaginary angular momentum of the earth (having in mind it's substantial strength)? I am sure that the answer to that question is negative!!! So, we don't fly off from the surface of the earth not because of the gravity but because the earth doesn't rotate!

The question is this : isn't the gravitational force (whatever the true nature of gravity is) too weak to cancel out imaginary angular momentum of the earth (having in mind it's substantial strength)?

No it's not too weak, it's strong enough by a factor of around 300. This has already been pointed out to you in this very thread.

Of course, if you disagree you can show your own calculations.

The question is this : isn't the gravitational force (whatever the true nature of gravity is) too weak to cancel out imaginary angular momentum of the earth (having in mind it's substantial strength)? I am sure that the answer to that question is negative!!! So, we don't fly off from the surface of the earth not because of the gravity but because the earth doesn't rotate!

.0007 rpm. 

Your argument is destroyed.  What else do you have?

It seems that i have to slow down the motion of the ball :

Why do you feel the need to post the same refuted crap in multiple threads.

It is quite simple, this doesn't match your claim or that of your con man.
It doesn't go up in a diagonal line and then drop back down as your con man claims, nor does it launch straight up as you claim.
This clearly shows that inertia is acting upon the ball.

Yes, air resistance will act to slow the ball down, as the ball is moving laterally through the air, not just straight up and down.
That didn't happen with your con man's experiment. Instead, the air was moving laterally with the ball, so there would be no lateral air resistance and thus no slowing down of the ball.

Air resistance doesn't just magically strip away inertia as you are so intent on claiming. It is a force that resists relative motion of objects in it.

This same air resistance can make things move on your allegedly stationary Earth, for example, with wind blowing around leaves.
According to you, all the air resistance should do is kill the inertia, so how can it make stationary things move?

Face it, your argument is pure bullshit.

If you think it should be different, then explain why.
Feel free to use the drag equation, noting that you need to use delta V, not V, so if the ball is moving with the air (laterally), then the drag force will just act up and down.

So, the earth continues to rotate, but you are lunched in the air and after 5 seconds you (and everything else) are already translated 2300 m in a straight (tangential) line...

Sure, and what is the difference between that and the path you would have taken if gravity was still on and you were standing there?

Well, we have a right angle triangle, with sides R, R+h and d.
Thus (R+h)^2=R^2+d^2.
So h=sqrt(R^2+d^2)-R.
Stick the numbers in, R=6378 km (for the equator), d=2.3 km (just taking your word, not calculating it myself).
So we get h=sqrt(6378^2+2.3^2)-6378 = 4.1e-4 km, = 41 cm.
Wow, we would be SOOOOO HIGH.
I think I might die if I fall from that massive height of 41 cm.
Wait no, my bad, just tried it, lived just fine.

The bigger issue will be with exactly how it is turned off.

If it gradually eases off, then it would be fine, if it just cuts off instantly, the bigger problem will be the normal reaction force which will initially accelerate you at a rate of 9.8 m/s^2 upwards, but it wouldn't act for very long.

The question is this : isn't the gravitational force (whatever the true nature of gravity is) too weak to cancel out imaginary angular momentum of the earth

No. The real gravitational force doesn't need to cancel out the real angular momentum of Earth.
All it needs to do is provide the negligible centripetal acceleration to keep you bound to Earth, following it in a circular path.

(having in mind it's substantial strength)?

Yes, Earth's angular momentum is quite substantial, because it weighs so much. The centripetal acceleration is basically nothing due to how slowly Earth is rotating.

I am sure that the answer to that question is negative!!! So, we don't fly off from the surface of the earth not because of the gravity but because the earth doesn't rotate!

But that question had nothing to do with us flying off Earth.
The correct question for that would be:
Is the acceleration due to the gravity from Earth enough to overcome the practically non-existent apparent centrifugal force due to Earth rotating?
The answer to that is YES, because Earth spins so slowly, at least when you are on the surface of Earth moving with it.
In order to be in orbit near the surface of Earth (such that you would be weightless), you would need the centripetal acceleration to be 9.8 m/s^2.
Taking note that F=v^2/r, this gives us F*r=v^2, and thus v=sqrt(F*r).
F=9.8 m/s^2, r=6378100 m
Thus v^2=62505380 m^2/s^2
Thus v=7906 m/s.
So to be in orbit at the surface of Earth, you need to be travelling at a speed of roughly 8 km/s.
That gives you an orbital period of roughly 84 minutes.
Notice how that is MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH faster than Earth's rotational speed of roughly 15 degrees an hour, or one period every 24 hours?

So once again, your argument is pure bullshit.
The centrifugal force from Earth spinning is basically nothing.

Again, if you wish to object, feel free to provide the calculations which show what it is.

Quote from: Alpha2Omega on May 12, 2017, 08:54:39 PM

It would certainly be disruptive. There's no reason to think there would be rolling, tumbling, or any of that other mayhem, though.

It would be very disruptive, similarly as if the earth stopped to rotate (of course there's no such thing as the rotation of the earth...)...Use your imagination : you are moving 460 m/s (at the equator), and the only thing which holds you on the surface of the earth (and prevents you to fly off, that is to say : to proceed to move in a straight (tangential) line), suddenly disappears... So, the earth continues to rotate, but you are lunched in the air and after 5 seconds you (and everything else) are already translated 2300 m in a straight (tangential) line...

Well, not exactly. In those same five seconds, the ground below you also travels 2300 m in exactly the same direction, so it doesn't appear to be moving relative to you. At all. Further, presuming you didn't do something like jump or even push upward just as gravity switched off, you would slowly rise above the surface[nb]Presuming whatever is the surface maintained its previous solid form - let's say it's all rock that somehow "stuck" to the earth despite gravity being switched off, but now we're making all sorts of assumptions here...[/nb], accelerating above the point you were standing at 0.034 m/s² (using your number, which is approximately the actual value).

The question is this : isn't the gravitational force (whatever the true nature of gravity is) too weak to cancel out imaginary angular momentum of the earth (having in mind it's substantial strength)?

Nope. It's about 300 times stronger. You said so yourself:

The centrifugal force on your body at the equator is 0.034 m/s2 times the mass of your body. The centrifugal force at the poles is zero.

0.034 m/s² is 1/288 the gravitational acceleration at the surface of the earth, which is about 9.8 m/s².

I am sure that the answer to that question is negative!!!

You may be sure, but you're wrong anyway.

So, we don't fly off from the surface of the earth not because of the gravity but because the earth doesn't rotate!

This is incorrect, as has already been shown.

Quote from: cikljamas on May 13, 2017, 05:23:45 AM

It seems that i have to slow down the motion of the ball :

Why do you feel the need to post the same refuted crap in multiple threads.

Because that is what spammers do.

Quote from: Alpha2Omega on May 12, 2017, 08:54:39 PM

It would certainly be disruptive. There's no reason to think there would be rolling, tumbling, or any of that other mayhem, though.

It would be very disruptive, similarly as if the earth stopped to rotate (of course there's no such thing as the rotation of the earth...)...Use your imagination : you are moving 460 m/s (at the equator), and the only thing which holds you on the surface of the earth (and prevents you to fly off, that is to say : to proceed to move in a straight (tangential) line), suddenly disappears... So, the earth continues to rotate, but you are lunched in the air and after 5 seconds you (and everything else) are already translated 2300 m in a straight (tangential) line...

Stop talking rubbish! Sure
"you are lunched launched in the air and after 5 seconds
But what does the continue to do during these crucial 5 seconds?
So exactly as we have been saying all along, though I have calculated the numbers more precisely,But, I doubt that it would  any worse that a minor  earthquake, though I'm sure there would be many casualities from the numerous trains off tracks and cars ending up where the should't oughta.

The question is this : isn't the gravitational force (whatever the true nature of gravity is) too weak to cancel out imaginary angular momentum of the earth (having in mind it's substantial strength)?

What on earth are you talking about?
Gravity is an acceleration with units m.s^-2,
"Gravitational force" is an force with units N or kg⋅m⋅s⁻² and
"angular momentum of the earth" has units kg.m^-2.sec^-1.
They are not the same sort thing, so why would you ever expect
"the gravitational force" whatever you mean by that) to "cancel out imaginary angular momentum of the earth".
The two are simply not related!

I am sure that the answer to that question is negative!!! So, we don't fly off from the surface of the earth not because of the gravity but because the earth doesn't rotate!

I fail to see the connection!
The simple answer is clearly that "we don't fly off from the surface of the earth because gravity is real".
And you have not given the slightest bit of coherent evidence against i.

As I have requested before, before you try to debunk the Glove, please go away and learn some real physics.

So far, as I have said before, all of your arguments against are pure and simply classic
You set up a totally false scenario of what YOU think should happen on the Globe, then shoot your own argument down!

Instead, all you are doing is continually shooting yourself in the foot.

But, I suppose that all your little sheepies on YouTube fawn over this smart "engineer".

1. Why would earth's atmosphere rotate with the rigid earth, in the first place?

A vacuum above the earth & the gravity?

As for a vacuum :

How high must one get before the atmospheric rotation does not exist? For if all rotates it must have to stop somewhere. I figure at mt Everest you have one third less air at top so wouldn't that mean at 100,000 feet, if Mt Everest is at 28000 ft, no air or no atmosphere? So why not simple make airplanes outfitted for 110000 ft go up and then come down and let the earth spin underneath to arrive at your destination. Well, how about numerous footages (countless of which are available on youtube) taken by cameras (attached to a baskets of a balloons that can go as high as 125 000 feet) in which we can clearly see perfectly still earth underneath??? U know why they don't, because it's all Bullshit!

As for gravity :

If gravity can drag atmosphere in such a manner that every single molecule of air moves along the earth with correspondent velocity in relation to the supposed velocity of certain latitudinal point on the earth, and if gravity in such (just described) manner can allow inertia to counteract air drug, then you have to accept one other assumption (which no sane person can accept recognizing it - at the first glance - as nothing more but stupid speculation, just like everything else in HC theory is) according which every single molecule of air would have to be somehow "glued" to correspondent latitudinal point on the earth.

Contrasted with the example of a rocket having blasted off the earth and heading to the moon, the rocket will retain the original speed of the earth that it was on because the rocket is flying to the moon in a vacuum (for the sake of this argument anyway), and there is no drag to slow down its original motion.

But what keeps the airplane's "original motion" going? One can only postulate so many things: gravity or the air being the two obvious ones. But gravity only pulls downward and not laterally, and the air, well, it cannot have any ability to "push" or "carry" the plane because it is a gas. (Remember, if it's a rotating-with-the-earth solid, the plane couldn't fly through it anyway...CATCH 22)

The natural effect of the plane not having an impetus to maintain its "original motion" is that the plane will obviously lose angular velocity to the earth's faster rotation below. And if it loses even a little, will it not lose it entirely? Of course. Whatever link there was between the two has been severed. The drag of the atmosphere will illustrate this every time.

What this all means is that if the "original motion" component of the plane is not maintained, then explaining its observed travel reality by resorting to "relative motion" (just like for outer space bodies where the original motion IS maintained) is fatally wounded. So therefore, to conclude that the difference in mediums does not affect the way relative motion would work is not logical

2. This experiment ... ...reminds me of the basic flaw in Einstein's reasoning. The premise behind general relativity is exactly as shown in this vid except light is used instead of a physical ball. If the ceiling were covered with a mirror the photon would be reflected back, EXCEPT the photon is not moving forward (only up) because a photon is moving in a direction the source (laser) is pointing at the time of the trigger. One cannot add a side motion to a photon and that's a basic difference between a real thing (a rock, a ball) and a massless (not inertia based) entity that is light/photon. A photon also cannot put pressure on a mirror surface at a bounce.

1. Why would earth's atmosphere rotate with the rigid earth, in the first place?

A vacuum above the earth & the gravity?

As for a vacuum :

How high must one get before the atmospheric rotation does not exist? For if all rotates it must have to stop somewhere. I figure at mt Everest you have one third less air at top so wouldn't that mean at 100,000 feet, if Mt Everest is at 28000 ft, no air or no atmosphere?

No. Air pressure does not decline linearly with altitude. As a first-order approximation, assuming constant temperature and composition, it decreases as altitude increases as

e^-h

where h is altitude.

Here's a calculator for you to play with. It also gives additional information about the Barometric Formula.

In theory, it never "goes to zero", but eventually it becomes so small it's insignificant. Where does that happen? It depends on what you're trying to do. There's still enough atmosphere at the height of the ISS (~400 km) that its drag has enough cumulative effect to need to be overcome.

So why not simple make airplanes outfitted for 110000 ft go up and then come down and let the earth spin underneath to arrive at your destination.

There are a couple of reasons. First, it's not so "simple" to make airplanes capable of flight in excess of 100,000 feet. Second, in order for an airplane to fly that high, it also must be very fast, so it ain't exactly going to hover. Third, as you point out in the very next sentence, even at that altitude, the atmosphere is still pretty well coupled with the earth's rotation.

Well, how about numerous footages (countless of which are available on youtube) taken by cameras (attached to a baskets of a balloons that can go as high as 125 000 feet) in which we can clearly see perfectly still earth underneath???

Apparently, the atmosphere is still keeping up with the earth at the height of those balloons.

U know why they don't, because it's all Bullshit!

Don't what? You've pretty much scuttled your own argument.

As for gravity :

If gravity can drag atmosphere in such a manner that every single molecule of air moves along the earth with correspondent velocity in relation to the supposed velocity of certain latitudinal point on the earth, and if gravity in such (just described) manner can allow inertia to counteract air [drag], then you have to accept one other assumption (which no sane person can accept recognizing it - at the first glance - as nothing more but stupid speculation, just like everything else in HC theory is) according which every single molecule of air would have to be somehow "glued" to correspondent latitudinal point on the earth.

"Glued"? No. It's friction that causes the atmosphere to move (more or less, the difference being called "wind") in concert with the ground below.

Contrasted with the example of a rocket having blasted off the earth and heading to the moon, the rocket will retain the original speed of the earth that it was on because the rocket is flying to the moon in a vacuum (for the sake of this argument anyway), and there is no drag to slow down its original motion.

Rockets launched from earth have drag while they're still in the atmosphere. That's why the front end of them is "pointy". Note that the LM ascent stages were not "pointy". That's because they didn't need to be.

The eastward velocity imparted by the earth's spin to rockets launched into earth orbit and beyond are factored into the calculations used to determine the launch parameters needed to achieve the desired trajectory in space. Launches from near the equator get more eastward velocity "for free" than launches from higher latitudes.

But what keeps the airplane's "original motion" going? One can only postulate so many things: gravity or the air being the two obvious ones. But gravity only pulls downward and not laterally, and the air, well, it cannot have any ability to "push" or "carry" the plane because it is a gas.

If you really believe that last, go outside on a windy day and report back about how a gas cannot push a solid object. Better yet, go fly a kite.

Meanwhile, the four forces of flight:


Weight is the effect gravity has on the mass of the aircraft and everything inside it. You're right that it does not provide impetus to carry an aircraft laterally through the air; that impetus provided by thrust. Thrust is necessary to impart (and maintain, because of drag) motion with respect to the air so that the wings can produce lift, necessary to counteract weight. The initial eastward motion of the ground, air, and aircraft is irrelevant because they are all stationary with respect to each other until the aircraft starts moving with respect to the other two.

(Remember, if it's a rotating-with-the-earth solid, the plane couldn't fly through it anyway...CATCH 22)

Why not?

The natural effect of the plane not having an impetus to maintain its "original motion" is that the plane will obviously lose angular velocity to the earth's faster rotation below.

Why? The air is stationary with respect to the ground below (neglecting wind). A helicopter or balloon will remain aloft over the same spot if there are no winds, because in the absence of wind, the air is moving along with the earth below.

And if it loses even a little, will it not lose it entirely? Of course. Whatever link there was between the two has been severed. The drag of the atmosphere will illustrate this every time.

There is no drag if you're not moving with respect to the air. Airplanes have to move with respect to the air in order for the wings to produce lift to offset weight. In order to maintain motion with respect to the air, which causes drag, they need to provide thrust. See the image of the four forces of flight, above.

What this all means is that if the "original motion" component of the plane is not maintained, then explaining its observed travel reality by resorting to "relative motion" (just like for outer space bodies where the original motion IS maintained) is fatally wounded. So therefore, to conclude that the difference in mediums does not affect the way relative motion would work is not logical

What is apparent is that you've managed to thoroughly confuse yourself. If the atmosphere were stationary in space as the earth rotated within it, you'd be blown westward unless firmly attached to the earth. It's not stationary in space though. Since it rotates with the earth, we feel no air motion except for winds, which are driven by uneven heating and cooling of the surface.

2. This experiment ... ...reminds me of the basic flaw in Einstein's reasoning. The premise behind general relativity is exactly as shown in this vid except light is used instead of a physical ball. If the ceiling were covered with a mirror the photon would be reflected back, EXCEPT the photon is not moving forward (only up) because a photon is moving in a direction the source (laser) is pointing at the time of the trigger. One cannot add a side motion to a photon and that's a basic difference between a real thing (a rock, a ball) and a massless (not inertia based) entity that is light/photon. A photon also cannot put pressure on a mirror surface at a bounce.

Really? See radiation pressure.

You're already struggling with the basics of classical physics. Best leave relativity until you get a much better grasp on Newtonian mechanics at the very least.

Ciklijamas, instead of getting angry and calling everything a fraud, why don't you take at least SOME time to learn some basic physics? Almost everything you say is objectively and demonstrably wrong, if you actually let people explain to you why it's wrong you'd probably understand, and you'd learn something. You're acting very childishly.

Ciklijamas, instead of getting angry and calling everything a fraud, why don't you take at least SOME time to learn some basic physics? Almost everything you say is objectively and demonstrably wrong, if you actually let people explain to you why it's wrong you'd probably understand, and you'd learn something. You're acting very childishly.

Physics is interesting stuff, but logic is even more interesting!
Physics is of no use if you don't know how to think logically and sanely!
If you knew how to think logically and sanely then you would question everything including newtonian physics (“action at a distance”) and einsteinian crap - theory of relativity ("space-time curvature")!
In addition : when we talk about linear inertia experiment, then you have to be aware that we used that example in order to analyze authenticity of something else : supposed rotation and orbital motion of the earth! That is why i often make reference to angular momentum (or centrifugal force) in the same context in which we talk about linear inertia experiment, and then misunderstandings occur, but i don't want to lose my energy to explain (or to point out) what lies behind these misunderstandings...so, it's not about my lack of knowledge of basic physics it's rather about your narrow-minded (and often illogical) way of reasoning.

In addition :

What if the Earth frame (lab,ECEF) itself were the absolute frame??!!

Covariance is ignored… The so-called principle of relativity is actually covariance, a statement of where – in what ref frames - the laws of physics are valid! Covariance is an axiom of dynamics for a single observer. .

MMX misinterpretation: … the Michaelson - Moreley MMX experiment did, in fact, NOT detect the Earth's motion..

It did detect the aether motion[/color]…as did other tests.

As for MMX itself, the common interpretation by Special Relativity theorists is that the experiment yielded a “null” result. Yes, if you are looking for fringe shifts in the interferometer that coincide with an Earth moving around the sun at 30km/sec, I guess one would be predisposed to conclude that the results of MMX were “null.”
But the truth is, in the technical sense of the term, the results of MMX were anything but “null.” Null means zero, but MMX did not register a zero ether drift. It measured one-sixth to one-tenth of the 30km/sec that the Earth was supposedly moving around the sun. Here are Michelson’s own words:

“Considering the motion of the Earth in its orbit only, this displacement should be 2D v^2/V^2
= 2D × 10^-8. The distance D was about eleven meters, or 2 × 10^7 wavelengths of yellow light;
hence, the displacement to be expected was 0.4 fringe. The actual displacement was certainly less
than the twentieth part of this, and probably less than the fortieth part. But since the displacement
is proportional to the square of the velocity, the relative velocity of the Earth and the ether is probably
less than one-sixth the Earth’s orbital velocity, and certainly less than one-fourth”
(A. A. Michelson and E. W. Morley, “On the Relative Motion of the Earth and the Luminiferous Ether,” Art. xxxvi, The American Journal of Science, eds. James D and Edward S. Dana, No. 203, vol. xxxiv, November 1887, p. 341.)

So was the case for every interferometer experiment performed for the next 80 years until the 1960s [/b]– a small ether drift that was a fraction of 30km/sec. This was a conundrum for Einstein and his followers, since the Special Theory of Relativity, which was invented to answer MMX, claimed that there was NO ether at all in space – none, nada, zilch, zero. In fact, Einstein said that if there was any ether in space, then his theory is nullified.

He said, “If Michelson-Morley is wrong, then Relativity is wrong.” - Einstein: The Life and Times, p. 107.

So Einstein simply dismissed the fractional ether drift of MMX as a mere artifact.But the sad fact is, scientifically speaking, artifacts would not have appeared in all the dozens of interferometer experiments performed over the next 80 years.“Artifacts” are posited only because modern interpreters are bound to the Copernican Principle, by their own admission.

Interestingly enough, Michelson preformed another interferometer experiment with Gale in 1925 (MGX),
but this one was designed to measure the rotation of the Earth, not a revolution around the sun. Lo and
behold, Michelson found an ether drift that was near 100% of a 24 hour rotation period. So, whereas
MMX measured 0.1% of a 365-day revolution around the sun, MGX measured a 99% of a 24-hour
rotation, simply by using the measured ether drift.

This presents quite a problem for the heliocentric camp, for the interferometers measure a rotation but
not a revolution. But heliocentrism must have both, otherwise it is falsified!

Conversely, geocentrism needs only one, the rotation, since if the star field is rotating around a fixed
Earth we would expect to see a near 100% ether drift against the Earth, which is precisely what the 1925
MGX showed. But since there is no revolution of the Earth in the geocentric system, this answers why the
1887 MMX did not produce anywhere near a 30km/sec ether drift. The facts speak for themselves. On a
purely scientific basis, there is absolutely no reason why a motionless Earth cannot be used to explain
both MMX and MGX!

The experiments of Sagnac and Michelson & Gale are rarely mentioned. Until recently it was quite difficult to find a reference to them. As Dean Turner pointed out "One may scan Einstein's writings in vain to find mention of the Sagnac or Michelson-Gale experiments. The same can be said of general physics text-books and of the McGraw-Hill Encyclopaedia of Science and Technology...Such an oversight constitutes a stinging indictment of professional scientific reporting". It is indeed quite difficult to get information on these experiments. They seem to be such an embarrassment to relativity that those who know about them would rather not say too much.

Quite a number of relativity experts, however, do know about them, and when pressed many admit that they show the Special Theory of Relativity (the theory taught to all science students, and the basis for much of "modern physics") to be inadequate. READ MORE : http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1678902#msg1678902

CASE CLOSED!

I see sickly pajamas has returned with the same tired nonsense he was embarrassed with a couple of years ago.  I will wait and watch the newer members show us how much of an idiot he is.
I see he is still misquoting and also calling upon the Michelson Morley failure as a reason to say the Earth is motionless again when all they really proved was there was no aether.

Quote from: Definitely Not Official on May 14, 2017, 08:59:29 AM

Ciklijamas, instead of getting angry and calling everything a fraud, why don't you take at least SOME time to learn some basic physics? Almost everything you say is objectively and demonstrably wrong, if you actually let people explain to you why it's wrong you'd probably understand, and you'd learn something. You're acting very childishly.

Physics is interesting stuff, but logic is even more interesting!
Physics is of no use if you don't know how to think logically and sanely!
If you knew how to think logically and sanely then you would question everything including newtonian physics (“action at a distance”) and einsteinian crap - theory of relativity ("space-time curvature")!

Well, then, since Newtonian physics has been tried and tested for centuries and found to work splendidly explaining and predicting everyday phenomena, then logically, it can be considered correct until something better comes along.

Some extreme cases are better explained by the more complete Einsteinian theories, now tested for a century and never found incorrect, but the improvement is negligible for most problems humans deal with.

Accepting this as untrue is what's insane unless you have something better to offer. Note: before it can be "better" your replacement must first "work". What you've offered so far doesn't work at all. What else have you got?

In addition : when we talk about linear inertia experiment, then you have to be aware that we used that example in order to analyze authenticity of something else : supposed rotation and orbital motion of the earth! That is why i often make reference to angular momentum (or centrifugal force) in the same context in which we talk about linear inertia experiment, and then misunderstandings occur, but i don't want to lose my energy to explain (or to point out) what lies behind these misunderstandings...so, it's not about my lack of knowledge of basic physics it's rather about your narrow-minded (and often illogical) way of reasoning.

No, it really is about your lack of knowledge of physics. That's all.

[Edit] Omissions in original.

1. Why would earth's atmosphere rotate with the rigid earth, in the first place?

It's called friction.
If it didn't, there would be massive wind speeds resulting in massive friction between Earth and the ground which would act to slow Earth and speed up the wind.
Over time, this would bring it to be quite consistent with the speed of Earth, however as the effect isn't massively huge, it would still allow some winds to form.

A vacuum above the earth & the gravity?

No.

As for a vacuum :
How high must one get before the atmospheric rotation does not exist? For if all rotates it must have to stop somewhere.

The atmosphere just gets thinner and thinner until it begins to act like particles instead of a gas, and it continues to get thinner until the solar wind takes over.

I figure at mt Everest you have one third less air at top so wouldn't that mean at 100,000 feet, if Mt Everest is at 28000 ft, no air or no atmosphere?

No. Not in the slightest.
The density/pressure of the atmosphere is not a linear decrease. It is an exponential decrease.
This is because the lower atmosphere is compressed by the upper atmosphere, which is what is generating the pressure.
So at the bottom of the atmosphere, near sea level, you have roughly 10 000 kg of air per m.
This is compressing the air making it have a pressure of 1 atmosphere and a density of roughly 0.0012 grams per cm^3. or 1.2 kg/m^3.
That means if you go up 1 m, it will have 1.2kg less air weighing it down and thus it would have a lower pressure and lower density.
Go up more and more and more, and you have basically no air pushing down on it, so it is a very low pressure, with very low density and thus the change in pressure is smaller as you go up further.

At every point, the change in pressure per change in height is proportional to the density of the air, and thus the pressure.

If you ignore the slight variations, such as the slight curve, the slight reduction in gravity and the change in temperature, it would be a perfect exponential decay.

This is very different to when going under water.
Water is not compressible.
That means 1 m^3 of  water at 1 atm of pressure, will weigh pretty much the same as 1 m^3 of water at 10 atmospheres (and so on).
So that means the rate of change of pressure is fairly constant, and thus you get a linear change of roughly 1 atmosphere every 10 m.

So why not simple make airplanes outfitted for 110000 ft go up and then come down and let the earth spin underneath to arrive at your destination.

Several reasons.
I'm not sure which would would be the bigger issue.
Perhaps the biggest one with your plan is INERTIA. Or did you forget that?
The plane goes up into space, and still has its inertia and thus will keep on moving with Earth. Thus it can't just wait for Earth to spin underneath it, as it is moving with Earth.
(technically there would be a slight difference, but that would make the flights take much much much much longer).

Remember, the force of drag is proportional to the density of the medium, so even if you had a tiny bit of magic air up there which was not rotating with Earth, its density would be effectively 0, so it wouldn't be able to slow the craft down.

But another issue is how planes fly.
They use airflow over their wings to generate lift. Even helicopters do this, but instead of having wings fixed to their craft and engines to propel them forward, their wings spin around (which is why they are called rotary wing aircraft).
If there is no atmosphere (or basically none), then there is no lift. That means if you magically transported your planes up there, they would then fall back down like a brick as they have no lift keeping them there.

The other issue is their engine.
There are numerous types.
The most common are props, turbo prop, and turbo fan.
All 3 of these have a large portion (or all) of the forward motion (which is required for lift) to be generated by pulling the air in and throwing it behind them. So no air, no thrust. The other issue is that the planes only carry fuel and these engines require an atmosphere with oxygen to work. So no air, no engines.

Then there is the pressure issue.
While planes can withstand a good deal of pressure, I'm not sure if they are capable of withstanding the vacuum of space.
So no, that plan wouldn't work at all.

A better plan (which people are working on), is to have a craft capable of space flight or at least flight at significantly reduced pressure to fly up there where there is very little drag to be able to reach the destination much faster.

Well, how about numerous footages (countless of which are available on youtube) taken by cameras (attached to a baskets of a balloons that can go as high as 125 000 feet) in which we can clearly see perfectly still earth underneath??? U know why they don't, because it's all Bullshit!

Would this be the "still" Earth, underneath a "still" balloon?
i.e with the balloon moving with Earth? If so, what did you expect?
That is like complaining that the dash cam in a car shows the car as stationary.
If the camera is moving with Earth, it wont show motion.

If you manage to have it still in space, then you are trying to watch for a staggering slow speed of 15 degrees an hour.

As for gravity :
If gravity can drag atmosphere

It doesn't drag atmosphere.
It attracts it which results in a pressurised atmosphere form the weight of the air above which results in friction between the air and the ground which keeps the atmosphere (for the most part) moving with Earth.

in such a manner that every single molecule of air moves along the earth with correspondent velocity

It doesn't.
The individual molecules are travelling with numerous different speeds.
Nitrogen molecules at 25 degrees would be travelling at roughly 500 m/s relative to Earth, in random directions.
The bulk flow is what moves with Earth.

I will skip the nonsense based upon this false assumption.

which no sane person can accept recognizing it - at the first glance - as nothing more but stupid speculation, just like everything else in HC theory is

You mean your pathetic straw manning of the HC theory which no sane, educated person would ever suggest is part of HC theory.

But what keeps the airplane's "original motion" going?

I already pointed out this is a completely stupid and ignorant comment.
It doesn't need anything to keep its original motion going. It has inertia. That will keep it in motion unless it is acted upon by another force.
That means that it doesn't need anything to keep its original motion going, it would need something to STOP its original motion.

So what is there which is meant to stop the original motion of the plane?

gravity only pulls downward

Which results in the planes path curving to match Earth.

the air, well, it cannot have any ability to "push" or "carry" the plane because it is a gas.

Pure, childish, ignorant garbage.

Have you ever seen a leaf (or anything else) blown by the wind?
That is the air pushing and carrying things.
Gasses can push and carry things. This is because they have pressure which is capable of exerting forces on objects.

Remember, if it's a rotating-with-the-earth solid

Good thing it isn't and instead it is rotating-with-the-earth gas.

The natural effect of the plane not having an impetus to maintain its "original motion"

Which would be completely unnatural in the sense of completely violating the laws of nature (like inertia).

The natural effect of the plane's inertia will be that it continues with its original motion, and continue to be effected by other forces.

What force is there that will strip it of its original motion?

The drag of the atmosphere will illustrate this every time.

No it wont.
The drag of the atmosphere acts to make things move with the atmosphere, as seen by wind blowing objects around. It doesn't act to reduce the velocity to 0 in some non-existent absolute reference frame.

So therefore, to conclude that the difference in mediums does not affect the way relative motion would work is not logical

No. What is completely illogical is to assume that a difference in medium will magically result in inertia disappearing.

This experiment ...

Which shows exactly what we are saying.
Inertia is maintained, but there is some random motion from turbulence in the air and some drag from the ball and launcher moving sideways through the air.
That didn't happen with your con man's cannon experiment, now with what you are trying to describe of planes.
Instead, the air is moving with Earth, and thus there is no lateral motion of the ball through the air and thus no drag to slow it down.
For a plane, there is lateral motion, producing significant drag, which is countered by the engines, which produce significant thrust.

reminds me of the basic flaw in Einstein's reasoning.

The only flawed reasoning here is you.

The premise behind general relativity is exactly as shown in this vid except light is used instead of a physical ball.

No, it uses slightly different math, and unlike the ball, the effects of drag are far more complicated.

One cannot add a side motion to a photon

Why not?
Are you saying you cant shoot a photon off at an angle, that lasers only work in orthogonal directions?

A photon also cannot put pressure on a mirror surface at a bounce.

Technically it can, it is just tiny/almost non-existent.
Light still has momentum.

Physics is interesting stuff, but logic is even more interesting!

Yes, I find logic to be quite interesting and sometimes counter-intuitive.
For example, seeing a non-black thing which isn't a raven is evidence that all ravens are black.
This is because the statement: All ravens are black
Is equivalent to: All non-black things are not ravens.

Thus seeing something which isn't black which is not a raven is evidence of the latter statement and by equivalence, also for the former.

But this isn't the place to discuss that.
This is the place to discuss your failed attempts to "prove" that Earth is stationary.

Physics is of no use if you don't know how to think logically and sanely!

Is this why it is of no use to you?
Because you can't think logically and assume that air resistance, rather than acting to make the object move with the air, will magically act to make it have 0 motion relative to an absolute reference frame (which doesn't exist in the first place)?
By that "reasoning", the friction holding you to a moving train should act in a similar manner, reducing your absolute speed to 0, rather than making it match the speed of the train.
There isn't anything logical about it at all.

If you knew how to think logically and sanely then you would question everything including newtonian physics (“action at a distance”) and einsteinian crap - theory of relativity ("space-time curvature")!

I do think logically. I do question things.
But questioning doesn't mean discarding it regardless. Instead it means questioning it and thinking about it to determine if it works/is true.

I have done that, and the heliocentric model holds up for the most part and just fails when you start dealing with other stars.
A better model is one in which there is no centre of the universe, where the sun rotates around the galactic centre.

Similarly, I also question the FE model, but unlike RE models, it fails at almost every turn, being completely incapable of explaining even the most basic things like the existence of the horizon.

On the other hand, you just outright reject any model which has Earth being round, coming up with whatever pathetic straw men you can, ignoring the answers to the alleged objections you raise, and just fully accept the FE garbage without question.
What part of that seems rational or logical?

i often make reference to angular momentum (or centrifugal force)

These are fundamentally different things.

in the same context in which we talk about linear inertia experiment, and then misunderstandings occur

The issue is the effects of rotation are different to those from linear motion.
You can consider linear motion to be a part of that of rotation, and that is what we were discussing with your con man's cannon experiment, that of linear motion, not rotation.
The calculations to determine the effect are significantly different.

What if the Earth frame itself were the absolute frame??!!

Then Foucault's pendulum would produce no apparent motion.

MMX experiment did, in fact, NOT detect the Earth's motion
It did detect the aether motion

It detected no motion relative to the aether.

Regardless, the best you could do then is detect motion relative to the aether. It wont tell you if it is the aether moving or Earth moving or both.
Just like a wind speed indicator can't tell you if the wind is moving, you are moving or both. All it measures is relative motion.

Null means zero

No. Null means indistinguishable from the null hypothesis, especially when that difference should be detectable.

The actual displacement was certainly less than the twentieth part of this, and probably less than the fortieth part.

i.e. they didn't detect any and that is their detection limit.

So was the case for every interferometer experiment performed for the next 80 years

They got better and better, lowing the threshold down to 1 part in 10^17.
None measured a linear ether drift.

Michelson found an ether drift that was near 100% of a 24 hour rotation period.

Yes, the Sagnac effect, based upon Earth's Sideal day of 23 hours and 56 minutes.
This doesn't require aether to work.

Conversely, geocentrism needs only one, the rotation, since if the star field is rotating around a fixed
Earth we would expect to see a near 100% ether drift against the Earth, which is precisely what the 1925
MGX showed.

It recorded a rotation. It does not record which one is rotating in the aether model, but does in the relativity model.

Also, why are you just copying and pasting crap from elsewhere?
What, are you unable to think for yourself?

this answers why the 1887 MMX did not produce anywhere near a 30km/sec ether drift. The facts speak for themselves.

That's right. They do. Aether doesn't exist.

On a purely scientific basis, there is absolutely no reason why a motionless Earth cannot be used to explain both MMX and MGX!

True, but what about the more recent experiments, which have a significantly better sensitivity? The variation in the speed of light (which would show as an aether drift) is less than 1 part in 10^-17,.so no linear motion relative to the aether.

But the rotation that is observed would also produce a linear motion component for anywhere that isn't the centre of rotation.

It is that which makes the aether model impossible of describing reality, regardless of if Earth is flat or round, stationary or moving, it simply cannot work.
We have the rotational motion, but not the linear components of it.

The aether model requires that the aether both moves relative to Earth and does not move relative to Earth.
This shows the aether model to not match reality and thus we need a better theory.

The ballistic model also fails to match reality. It is consistent with the results for linear motion, but incompatible with those for rotational motion.

Relativity is the only one which is capable of explaining it all.

The experiments of Sagnac and Michelson & Gale are rarely mentioned.

Except when you go into things like laser ring gyroscopes.
Perhaps they are rarely mentioned because of people like you taking the wrong understanding from them.

It is indeed quite difficult to get information on these experiments.

No. It is quite simple to find information on them and they are not a problem for relativity at all.

many admit that they show the Special Theory of Relativity to be inadequate.

More bullshit from you.
They are not a problem for relativity at all.
It only appears to be a problem when you treat the rotation as linear motion.

CASE CLOSED!

Yes, case closed. Both the aether model and the ballistic model fail.
The only model which works is relativity.


Now then, how about instead of continually spouting irrelevant crap you try dealing with the argument at hand?

Quote from: cikljamas on May 14, 2017, 09:53:52 AM

Quote from: Definitely Not Official on May 14, 2017, 08:59:29 AM

Ciklijamas, instead of getting angry and calling everything a fraud, why don't you take at least SOME time to learn some basic physics? Almost everything you say is objectively and demonstrably wrong, if you actually let people explain to you why it's wrong you'd probably understand, and you'd learn something. You're acting very childishly.

Physics is interesting stuff, but logic is even more interesting!
Physics is of no use if you don't know how to think logically and sanely!
If you knew how to think logically and sanely then you would question everything including newtonian physics (“action at a distance”) and einsteinian crap - theory of relativity ("space-time curvature")!

Well, then, since Newtonian physics has been tried and tested for centuries and found to work splendidly explaining and predicting everyday phenomena, then logically, it can be considered correct until something better comes along.

Some extreme cases are better explained by the more complete Einsteinian theories, now tested for a century and never found incorrect, but the improvement is negligible for most problems humans deal with.

Accepting this as untrue is what's insane unless you have something better to offer. Note: before it can be "better" your replacement must first "work". What you've offered so far doesn't work at all. What else have you got?

Quote

In addition : when we talk about linear inertia experiment, then you have to be aware that we used that example in order to analyze authenticity of something else : supposed rotation and orbital motion of the earth! That is why i often make reference to angular momentum (or centrifugal force) in the same context in which we talk about linear inertia experiment, and then misunderstandings occur, but i don't want to lose my energy to explain (or to point out) what lies behind these misunderstandings...so, it's not about my lack of knowledge of basic physics it's rather about your narrow-minded (and often illogical) way of reasoning.

No, it really is about your lack of knowledge of physics. That's all.

[Edit] Omissions in original.

Since you are such a great physicist then let's see how you are going to explain away these problems :

PROBLEM NO. 1 :

Fc (Centripetal force) = m*v^2/r = G*m*M/r^2 = Fg (force of gravity)

Now, when we cancel out little "m" on both sides, both forces are not forces (any longer) since the force demands mass!

PROBLEM NO. 2 :

Imagine you are on a rapidly rotating merry-go-round. You then let go of a ball and watch it fly. Surprisingly, the ball flies away from the center of the merry-go-round. Therefore there must be a force pushing the ball outward, the centrifugal force.

This is what really is happening. When you let go of the ball, it has a velocity tangential to the merry-go-round. Its inertia keeps it going in the direction it was going. That means it will quickly leave the merry-go-round. From an observer on the merry-go-round, the ball does fly away. If use a non-inertial frame of reference as our frame of reference, this phenomenon will occur as well as the Coriolis force.

Also think of it like this: a centripetal force is required to keep a ball spinning in a circle. If we take the case where the ball is at rest, it still needs the centripetal force holding it in. But the ball is at rest, what force is acting on it? The centrifugal force.

These two forces DO NOT EXIST. However, in order to use a rotating frame as the frame of reference, these two forces must exist.

So, these forces exist and don't exist in the same time! How could that be?

IN ADDITION :

Somebody once said that philosophy is the misuse of a terminology which was invented just for this purpose. [2 This statement is quoted here from W. Dubislav's Die Philosophie der Mathematik in der Gegenwart (Berlin: Junker and Dunnhaupt Verlag, 1932), p. 1.] In the same vein, I would say that mathematics is the science of skillful operations with concepts and rules invented just for this purpose.

It is inconceivable that inanimate brute matter should, without mediation of something else which is not matter, operate on and affect other matter without mutual contact. ... That gravity should be innate, inherent and essential to matter, so that one body may act upon another at-a-distance, through a vacuum, without the mediation of anything else by and through which their action may be conveyed from one to another, is to me so great an absurdity that I believe no man, who has in philosophical matters a competent faculty of thinking, can ever fall into it. So far I have explained the phenomena by the force of gravity, but I have not yet ascertained the cause of gravity itself. ... and I do not arbitrarily invent hypotheses. (Newton. Letter to Richard Bentley 25 Feb. 1693)

The more you see how strangely Nature behaves, the harder it is to make a model that explains how even the simplest phenomena actually work. So theoretical physics has given up on that. ... What I am going to tell you about is what we teach our physics students in the third or fourth year of graduate school... It is my task to convince you not to turn away because you don't understand it. You see my physics students don't understand it. ... That is because I don't understand it. Nobody does. (Richard P. Feynman, The Strange Theory of Light and Matter)

Mathematics was associated with a more refined type of error. Mathematical knowledge appeared to be certain, exact, and applicable to the real world; moreover it was obtained by mere thinking, without the need of observation. Consequently, it was thought to supply an ideal, from which everyday empirical knowledge fell short. It was supposed on the basis of mathematics, that thought is superior to sense, intuition to observation. If the world of sense does not fit mathematics, so much the worse for the world of sense. ... This form of philosophy begins with Pythagoras. (Bertrand Russell)

The skeptic will say: "It may well be true that this system of equations is reasonable from a logical standpoint. But this does not prove that it corresponds to nature." You are right, dear skeptic. Experience alone can decide on truth. ... Pure logical thinking cannot yield us any knowledge of the empirical world: all knowledge of reality starts from experience and ends in it.
(Albert Einstein, 1954)

Some things that satisfy the rules of algebra can be interesting to mathematicians even though they don't always represent a real situation. (Richard P. Feynman)