Disproving Round Earth Theory in Twelve Words

  • 41 Replies
  • 2593 Views
Disproving Round Earth Theory in Twelve Words
« on: November 04, 2017, 05:19:50 PM »
If perpetual motion is impossible, how does the Earth orbit the Sun?

Re: Disproving Round Earth Theory in Twelve Words
« Reply #1 on: November 04, 2017, 05:41:30 PM »
If perpetual motion is impossible, how does the Earth orbit the Sun?

Not perpetually. Next question?

Re: Disproving Round Earth Theory in Twelve Words
« Reply #2 on: November 04, 2017, 06:15:06 PM »
If perpetual motion is impossible, how does the Earth orbit the Sun?
No, both models "suffer" from the same issue.
If perpetual motion is impossible, how does the sun circle above Earth?

Perpetual motion is possible in a lossless system.
What is impossible is a perpetual motion style generator, that is a machine which you can continually draw energy from without putting any energy in (or just an initial energy input).
This energy can be drawn by an electrical generator, trying to achieve some mechanical work, or friction.

But the effect of friction will vary.
The main one affecting Earth is the friction due to "air resistance" as it moves through space.
Firstly, it is proportional to pressure (if I recall correctly, more technically it is proportional to the density of the fluid it is moving through), so Earth moving through a near perfect vacuum will be quite different to something spinning or moving on Earth with a much greater atmospheric pressure.
it would be like comparing a bullet fired through the air to a bullet fired through water.
The one fired through the air typically only stops because it hits something. I am yet to hear of air resistance stopping a bullet.
But fire it into water and it stops pretty quickly.
The density of interplanetary space is roughly 5 particles per cubic centimeter, with most of these particles being hydrogen or helium.
Assuming it is all helium, then each of these particles has a mass of roughly 4 g/mol. 1 mol is 6.022*10^23 particles. So the density is toughly 20/6.022*10^23 g per ml=~3*10^-23 g/ml, compared to normal air which is roughly 0.0012 or 1.2*10-3 g/ml.
So that means air slows things down by roughly 10^20 times that of the interplanetary medium.

It is also proportional to area or radius squared. However, it is a force, and thus the acceleration is inversely proportional to mass, which is proportional to radius cubed.
So the acceleration will be proportional to radius squared/radius cubed, or inversely proportional to radius.

That means the effect (if it was moving through normal atmosphere) on a bullet with a radius of only a few mm will be roughly 1 billion times (10^9) that on Earth (Earth's radius is roughly 6400 km, which is 6 400 000 000 mm or 6.4 billion mm).

So that means air friction on Earth is roughly 10^29 times that in space.
But that ignores velocity.
The hard part is that it has to be relative velocity. So assuming interplanetary space is stationary (w.r.t the sun), it won't be, but lets ignore that. A bullet can fire at 1.5 km/s. Meanwhile Earth moves at roughly 30 km/s, or 20 times that speed.
It is proportional to velocity squared, so that means it will be 400 times, or 4*10^2.

That means we end up with roughly 10^27 as the factor relating drag in space on Earth to drag on puny things on Earth.

5 billion years is roughly 1.6 *10^17 seconds.
So relating that with our factor, that gives an effective time for an acceleration to act of 10^-10 s.

How much does a bullet slow down in that time?
Not much.

As a comparison, the amount a bullet slows down in 1 second, should be roughly the amount (proportionally) that Earth slows down in 10*27 seconds or 3*10^19 years.

So why should Earth have slowed down significantly in its 5 billion year existence?

*

rabinoz

  • 26296
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Disproving Round Earth Theory in Twelve Words
« Reply #3 on: November 04, 2017, 09:39:29 PM »
If perpetual motion is impossible, how does the Earth orbit the Sun?
Irrelevant there is no requirement for th motion to be "perpetual".

Next question.

Re: Disproving Round Earth Theory in Twelve Words
« Reply #4 on: November 05, 2017, 12:52:39 PM »
The short answer is intertia. In the near-vacuum of space, there is no friction or other force to resist the motion of the Earth, so it keeps going.
"Science is real."
--They Might Be Giants

Re: Disproving Round Earth Theory in Twelve Words
« Reply #5 on: November 05, 2017, 02:07:47 PM »
If perpetual motion is impossible, how does the Earth orbit the Sun?

Perpetual motion is perfectly possible, in the right circumstances. Newton demonstrated as much. If a body is moving, it will do so indefinitely unless acted on by a force.
A perpetual motion machine is impossible. I think you're getting mixed up.
Founder member of the League Of Scientific Gentlemen and Mademoiselles des Connaissances.
I am pompous, self-righteous, thin skinned, and smug.

*

rabinoz

  • 26296
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Disproving Round Earth Theory in Twelve Words
« Reply #6 on: November 05, 2017, 04:36:43 PM »
Where's TheMelkur gone?
Presumably to find more irrefutable proofs that the earth is not a ball.

Just how many irrefutable proofs does it take? I thought one would be sufficient.

Re: Disproving Round Earth Theory in Twelve Words
« Reply #7 on: November 05, 2017, 04:57:37 PM »
Where's TheMelkur gone?
Presumably to find more irrefutable proofs that the earth is not a ball.

Just how many irrefutable proofs does it take? I thought one would be sufficient.

It only takes one. The round earth has been refuted, I just enjoy seeing all the ways I can make you grasp desperately for an excuse.

Re: Disproving Round Earth Theory in Twelve Words
« Reply #8 on: November 05, 2017, 06:08:07 PM »
Where's TheMelkur gone?
Presumably to find more irrefutable proofs that the earth is not a ball.

Just how many irrefutable proofs does it take? I thought one would be sufficient.

It only takes one. The round earth has been refuted, I just enjoy seeing all the ways I can make you grasp desperately for an excuse.
In what way was it refuted?  You demonstrated a lack of understanding and it was explained to you.

Re: Disproving Round Earth Theory in Twelve Words
« Reply #9 on: November 05, 2017, 06:10:33 PM »
Where's TheMelkur gone?
Presumably to find more irrefutable proofs that the earth is not a ball.

Just how many irrefutable proofs does it take? I thought one would be sufficient.

It only takes one. The round earth has been refuted, I just enjoy seeing all the ways I can make you grasp desperately for an excuse.
In what way was it refuted?  You demonstrated a lack of understanding and it was explained to you.

Keep telling yourself that.

*

rabinoz

  • 26296
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Disproving Round Earth Theory in Twelve Words
« Reply #10 on: November 05, 2017, 06:21:46 PM »
It only takes one. The round earth has been refuted, I just enjoy seeing all the ways I can make you grasp desperately for an excuse.
Not by that supposedly irrefutable proof! But undoubtedly you have many more just as easily refutable ;D irrefutable proofs ;D.

Re: Disproving Round Earth Theory in Twelve Words
« Reply #11 on: November 05, 2017, 08:37:28 PM »
Where's TheMelkur gone?
Presumably to find more irrefutable proofs that the earth is not a ball.

Just how many irrefutable proofs does it take? I thought one would be sufficient.

It only takes one. The round earth has been refuted, I just enjoy seeing all the ways I can make you grasp desperately for an excuse.
In what way was it refuted?  You demonstrated a lack of understanding and it was explained to you.

Keep telling yourself that.
You seem confused.  How exactly do you think you refuted a round earth?

*

Shifter

  • 14071
  • ASI
Re: Disproving Round Earth Theory in Twelve Words
« Reply #12 on: November 05, 2017, 10:38:14 PM »
If perpetual motion is impossible, how does the Earth orbit the Sun?

Perpetual motion is perfectly possible, in the right circumstances. Newton demonstrated as much. If a body is moving, it will do so indefinitely unless acted on by a force.
A perpetual motion machine is impossible. I think you're getting mixed up.

In a way we are being acted on by a force. The sun, which is being acted on by the super massive black hole in the centre of our galaxy which is being acted on by whatever this 'great attractor' is in the universe.

Technically F=ma, means that I am attracted to the jiggiling boobies of a hot alien babe in the triangulum galaxy. It's an infinitesimal attraction but it's measurable. Anything that contains mass is attracted to anything else containing mass in the universe.


Member of the BOTD for Anti Fascism and Racism

*

Macarios

  • 2028
Re: Disproving Round Earth Theory in Twelve Words
« Reply #13 on: November 05, 2017, 10:45:22 PM »
If perpetual motion is impossible, how does the Earth orbit the Sun?

What is impossible is Perpetuum Mobile, not Perpetual Motion. Do you know the difference?
I don't have to fight about anything.
These things are not about me.
When one points facts out, they speak for themselves.
The main goal in all that is simplicity.

Re: Disproving Round Earth Theory in Twelve Words
« Reply #14 on: November 05, 2017, 11:55:16 PM »
It only takes one. The round earth has been refuted, I just enjoy seeing all the ways I can make you grasp desperately for an excuse.
You mean the ways we show you to be full of shit.

You failed to refute anything.

Re: Disproving Round Earth Theory in Twelve Words
« Reply #15 on: November 06, 2017, 06:36:57 AM »
If perpetual motion is impossible, how does the Earth orbit the Sun?

gravity.

also the earth orbiting the sun is not a perpetual motion, the orbiting will not last for ever.

Re: Disproving Round Earth Theory in Twelve Words
« Reply #16 on: November 06, 2017, 01:49:20 PM »
Disproving the flat earth in one word.

Polaris.
Since it costs 1.82˘ to produce a penny, putting in your 2˘ if really worth 3.64˘.

Re: Disproving Round Earth Theory in Twelve Words
« Reply #17 on: November 06, 2017, 01:59:28 PM »
Disproving the flat earth in one word.

Polaris.

The better "one word" disprooof is Crux


Re: Disproving Round Earth Theory in Twelve Words
« Reply #18 on: November 06, 2017, 02:06:48 PM »
Disproving the flat earth in one word.

Polaris.

The better "one word" disprooof is Crux


Huh? Explain.
Founder member of the League Of Scientific Gentlemen and Mademoiselles des Connaissances.
I am pompous, self-righteous, thin skinned, and smug.

*

rabinoz

  • 26296
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Disproving Round Earth Theory in Twelve Words
« Reply #19 on: November 06, 2017, 02:55:15 PM »
Disproving the flat earth in one word.

Polaris.

The better "one word" disprooof is Crux


Huh? Explain.
Hint, Cruz rotates clockwise around a point in the night sky due south of everybody.

*

Bullwinkle

  • Flat Earth Curator
  • 18440
  • Thread Janitor
Re: Disproving Round Earth Theory in Twelve Words
« Reply #20 on: November 06, 2017, 03:53:28 PM »
If you face East the stars appear to travel straight over your head.

*

The globe

  • 50
  • Hello :V
Re: Disproving Round Earth Theory in Twelve Words
« Reply #21 on: November 06, 2017, 04:00:24 PM »
If perpetual motion is impossible, how does the Earth orbit the Sun?

Earth orbits the sun because of gravity, earth doesn’t stop rotating or translating because the space is almost a perfect vacuum so there is no resistance to earth’s movement

Re: Disproving Round Earth Theory in Twelve Words
« Reply #22 on: November 06, 2017, 04:27:56 PM »
If you face East the stars appear to travel straight over your head.
Not at the latitude I'm at.

Re: Disproving Round Earth Theory in Twelve Words
« Reply #23 on: November 06, 2017, 04:35:10 PM »
Disproving the flat earth in one word.

Polaris.

The better "one word" disprooof is Crux


Huh? Explain.
Polaris can kinda-sorta fit into the flat earth picture of a sky spinning around the spot above the north pole.  Crux does not fit that model, no matter how they slice it.

*

rabinoz

  • 26296
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Disproving Round Earth Theory in Twelve Words
« Reply #24 on: November 06, 2017, 06:40:18 PM »
If you face East the stars appear to travel straight over your head.
Well, roughly!

If I face due South the stars, including the Crux and its two pointers, Alpha and Beta Centuri appear to rotate clockwise around a point almost 30° above the horizon.

I imagine that if you face due North the stars appear to rotate clockwise around a point a bit over 30° above the horizon.
That is unless you have high mountains or very bright lights to the North.

*

Bullwinkle

  • Flat Earth Curator
  • 18440
  • Thread Janitor
Re: Disproving Round Earth Theory in Twelve Words
« Reply #25 on: November 06, 2017, 08:18:10 PM »
It just depends on which way you are facing.
If you stood at the 'South Pole' star trails would still travel CCW.

Re: Disproving Round Earth Theory in Twelve Words
« Reply #26 on: November 06, 2017, 11:30:32 PM »
If you face East the stars appear to travel straight over your head.
No, they don't.
The only time that happens is if you are on the equator and the star rises due east.
Otherwise it depends upon your location.
Some rise south of east, get closer but remain south, then move further south..
Some (depending on location), rise south of east, move north and go north of you, then curve back to the south.
Some rise north of east get closer but remain north, then move further north.
Some (depending on location), rise north of east, go south and end up south of you, then curve back to the north.
Some (depending on location) rise east, then curve to the north or south, before curving back the other way.



It just depends on which way you are facing.
If you stood at the 'South Pole' star trails would still travel CCW.
No. If you stood at the south pole and looked straight up stars would appear to circle around you constantly moving west. This means they move CW.

Re: Disproving Round Earth Theory in Twelve Words
« Reply #27 on: November 07, 2017, 10:34:09 AM »
Disproving the flat earth in one word.

Polaris.

The better "one word" disprooof is Crux


Huh? Explain.
Polaris can kinda-sorta fit into the flat earth picture of a sky spinning around the spot above the north pole.  Crux does not fit that model, no matter how they slice it.
I think the better disproof is the viewing angle.  In a flat earth model the sight lines converge but in a spherical earth they converge.  Not to mention surrounding stars rotate about Crux and Polaris in opposite directions. ;)

Mike
Since it costs 1.82˘ to produce a penny, putting in your 2˘ if really worth 3.64˘.

Re: Disproving Round Earth Theory in Twelve Words
« Reply #28 on: November 07, 2017, 11:13:40 AM »
The earth is not in "perpetual motion" around the Sun.  There is evidence that the earth in its orbit around the sun is slowing down by virtually microscopic amounts of time.  Over millenia this slowing may account for perhaps ten seconds in a thousand years or so, but it does indicate that millions or billions of years in the future the Earth will slow down to a halt.  So it's very long term compared to the human lifespan but it's not perpetual.

Now, to disprove the Flat Earth in one sentence:  How come nobody has ever found The Edge, it should be in all directions if you go far enough.

Re: Disproving Round Earth Theory in Twelve Words
« Reply #29 on: November 07, 2017, 11:24:07 AM »
Disproving the flat earth in one word.

Polaris.

The better "one word" disprooof is Crux


Huh? Explain.
Polaris can kinda-sorta fit into the flat earth picture of a sky spinning around the spot above the north pole.  Crux does not fit that model, no matter how they slice it.
I think the better disproof is the viewing angle.  In a flat earth model the sight lines converge but in a spherical earth they converge.  Not to mention surrounding stars rotate about Crux and Polaris in opposite directions. ;)

Mike

OK, let's get some facts straight. Crux is no more significant to the south astronomical pole than any other southern constellation. You could equally cite Dorado or Hydrus. The point of rotation itself is situated in the constellation of Octans. Stars do not rotate about Crux.
Founder member of the League Of Scientific Gentlemen and Mademoiselles des Connaissances.
I am pompous, self-righteous, thin skinned, and smug.