Long Time listener first time caller

So you can't support your point that I said rotation would be in one direction? 

Given a globe earth, It would be in the direction against the rotation of the earth, not one direction.

I think its important we agree that the experiment is a valid one first

so, does it matter if a rock is tied to a string, or a solid, or touching the earth for inertia to function, or not?

I seem to be having a lot friction trying to get an answer on this one.

I think its important we agree that the experiment is a valid one first; so, does it matter if a rock is tied to a string, or a solid, or touching the earth for inertia to function, or not?

I seem to be having a lot friction trying to get an answer on this one.

I did not have time last night due to minor sickness in the family, and thus was not able to consult my library on the source. Hopefully tonight.

Now that you agree that physics says what it says, if there is a Coriolis force, train tracks in the Northern ring that run north to south, or vice versa, will show more wear due to the inertia pushing slightly against the side opposite the movement over long periods of time. This would manifest in tracks needing to be replaced more often on said side; no such phenomena is manifested. This provides us with yet another evidence that the Earth is flat, and not spinning about like a child's whirligig.

Quote from: John Davis on December 07, 2017, 07:23:09 PM

I think its important we agree that the experiment is a valid one first

What experiment?

Quote

so, does it matter if a rock is tied to a string, or a solid, or touching the earth for inertia to function, or not?

No, it doesn't matter. Inertia is a property of mass. The earth, strings, or physical state (solid, liquid, gas, plasma) is not relevant.

Quote

I seem to be having a lot friction trying to get an answer on this one.

No, you aren't.

You're trying to dodge answering the question about how much additional force you expect to be applied by the weight of a train to one railroad track compared to the other due to their being on the spherical, rotating earth. We're getting a lot of tap dancing from you instead of an answer to that question, even though (more likely, because) it's central to your assertion.

How much would the difference in force between the two rails be for a 200,000 kg locomotive traveling due north in the northern hemisphere on rails separated by, say, 1.5 meters at, say, 30 m/s? Pick other parameters if you prefer, but specify them. The weight of this locomotive would be roughly 2,000 kN (nominally 1,000 kN per rail if it were evenly loaded and no extra issues like engine torque were involved). Feel free to express the answer in microNewtons, milliNewtons, Newtons, ounces-force, pounds-force or whatever unit seems most appropriate, but please specify the units of force you do decide to use.

How much is the difference? Please show the work.

[Edit] Correct typo.

I'm not dodging any questions. 

Quote from: John Davis on December 08, 2017, 08:23:57 AM

I'm not dodging any questions. 

If this were true, you would already have provided your calculations for how much more wear one track should have than the other and compared it to actual data from the replacement of tracks around the country.  Until you provide this information, you're just evading.

As it stands, I can't make any calculations because the globularists in this thread can't agree on whether or not it matters if objects are tied to strings, touching the ground, or what the Coriolis force is in the first place.

I'm not dodging any questions. I was told that inertia doesn't affect things touching the ground or on strings. Is this or is this not the case?

Quote from: Alpha2Omega on December 07, 2017, 08:12:58 PM

Quote from: John Davis on December 07, 2017, 07:23:09 PM

I think its important we agree that the experiment is a valid one first

What experiment?

Quote

so, does it matter if a rock is tied to a string, or a solid, or touching the earth for inertia to function, or not?

No, it doesn't matter. Inertia is a property of mass. The earth, strings, or physical state (solid, liquid, gas, plasma) is not relevant.

Quote

I seem to be having a lot friction trying to get an answer on this one.

No, you aren't.

You're trying to dodge answering the question about how much additional force you expect to be applied by the weight of a train to one railroad track compared to the other due to their being on the spherical, rotating earth. We're getting a lot of tap dancing from you instead of an answer to that question, even though (more likely, because) it's central to your assertion.

How much would the difference in force between the two rails be for a 200,000 kg locomotive traveling due north in the northern hemisphere on rails separated by, say, 1.5 meters at, say, 30 m/s? Pick other parameters if you prefer, but specify them. The weight of this locomotive would be roughly 2,000 kN (nominally 1,000 kN per rail if it were evenly loaded and no extra issues like engine torque were involved). Feel free to express the answer in microNewtons, milliNewtons, Newtons, ounces-force, pounds-force or whatever unit seems most appropriate, but please specify the units of force you do decide to use.

How much is the difference? Please show the work.

[Edit] Correct typo.

You claim I said it was overwhelmingly in one direction - I did not.
You claim I was the one that brought inertia into the discussion - I did not.

You, sir, are the one doing the dodging. Now answer the question:
"Why would rotation cause a pull in a direction opposite to the rotation?"

As it stands, I can't make any calculations because the globularists in this thread can't agree on whether or not it matters if objects are tied to strings, touching the ground, or what the Coriolis force is in the first place.

Quote from: ItsRoundIPromise on December 08, 2017, 08:27:49 AM

Quote from: John Davis on December 08, 2017, 08:23:57 AM

I'm not dodging any questions. 

If this were true, you would already have provided your calculations for how much more wear one track should have than the other and compared it to actual data from the replacement of tracks around the country.  Until you provide this information, you're just evading.

Quote from: John Davis on December 08, 2017, 08:23:57 AM

As it stands, I can't make any calculations because the globularists in this thread can't agree on whether or not it matters if objects are tied to strings, touching the ground, or what the Coriolis force is in the first place.

I'm not dodging any questions. I was told that inertia doesn't affect things touching the ground or on strings. Is this or is this not the case?

Quote from: Alpha2Omega on December 07, 2017, 08:12:58 PM

Quote from: John Davis on December 07, 2017, 07:23:09 PM

I think its important we agree that the experiment is a valid one first

What experiment?

Quote

so, does it matter if a rock is tied to a string, or a solid, or touching the earth for inertia to function, or not?

No, it doesn't matter. Inertia is a property of mass. The earth, strings, or physical state (solid, liquid, gas, plasma) is not relevant.

Quote

I seem to be having a lot friction trying to get an answer on this one.

No, you aren't.

You're trying to dodge answering the question about how much additional force you expect to be applied by the weight of a train to one railroad track compared to the other due to their being on the spherical, rotating earth. We're getting a lot of tap dancing from you instead of an answer to that question, even though (more likely, because) it's central to your assertion.

How much would the difference in force between the two rails be for a 200,000 kg locomotive traveling due north in the northern hemisphere on rails separated by, say, 1.5 meters at, say, 30 m/s? Pick other parameters if you prefer, but specify them. The weight of this locomotive would be roughly 2,000 kN (nominally 1,000 kN per rail if it were evenly loaded and no extra issues like engine torque were involved). Feel free to express the answer in microNewtons, milliNewtons, Newtons, ounces-force, pounds-force or whatever unit seems most appropriate, but please specify the units of force you do decide to use.

How much is the difference? Please show the work.

You claim I said it was overwhelmingly in one direction - I did not.

Yes, but why would it overwhelmingly be in the direction against the rotation of the earth?

You claim I was the one that brought inertia into the discussion - I did not.

You, sir, are the one doing the dodging. Now answer the question:
"Why would rotation cause a pull in a direction opposite to the rotation?"

As it stands, I can't make any calculations because <lame excuses>.

The truth of the matter is that railroad ties would receive uneven wear if it was really the case that this earth was some spinning marvelous globe bolting through the heavens at ridiculous speeds. In reality, we see that railroad ties wear evenly giving us yet another proof that the earth does not whirl about space in some sort of celestial race.

Carpenter I know talks of this, as do many others.

I'll verify it was Carpenter when I return home and have access to my library; admittedly I read this evidence quite some time ago.

I did not have time last night due to minor sickness in the family, and thus was not able to consult my library on the source. Hopefully tonight.

Quote from: John Davis on December 08, 2017, 08:33:50 AM

Quote from: ItsRoundIPromise on December 08, 2017, 08:27:49 AM

Quote from: John Davis on December 08, 2017, 08:23:57 AM

I'm not dodging any questions. 

If this were true, you would already have provided your calculations for how much more wear one track should have than the other and compared it to actual data from the replacement of tracks around the country.  Until you provide this information, you're just evading.

Quote from: John Davis on December 08, 2017, 08:23:57 AM

As it stands, I can't make any calculations because the globularists in this thread can't agree on whether or not it matters if objects are tied to strings, touching the ground, or what the Coriolis force is in the first place.

The calculations for YOUR hypothesis shouldn't be hinged on "globularist" misinterpretations of physics.  Do your math, according to your understanding of physics, and we can all check together if your predicted results differ from reality.

Quote from: John Davis on December 08, 2017, 08:23:57 AM

I'm not dodging any questions. I was told that inertia doesn't affect things touching the ground or on strings. Is this or is this not the case?

Already answered. It's in the quote block you included (highlighted below, in bold red, in case you missed it). Please actually read the responses and quit dodging the question.

Quote

Quote from: Alpha2Omega on December 07, 2017, 08:12:58 PM

Quote from: John Davis on December 07, 2017, 07:23:09 PM

I think its important we agree that the experiment is a valid one first

What experiment?

Quote

so, does it matter if a rock is tied to a string, or a solid, or touching the earth for inertia to function, or not?

No, it doesn't matter. Inertia is a property of mass. The earth, strings, or physical state (solid, liquid, gas, plasma) is not relevant.

Quote

I seem to be having a lot friction trying to get an answer on this one.

No, you aren't.

Ok I'm glad we all finally agree that strings don't change how inertia works.

Quote

You're trying to dodge answering the question about how much additional force you expect to be applied by the weight of a train to one railroad track compared to the other due to their being on the spherical, rotating earth. We're getting a lot of tap dancing from you instead of an answer to that question, even though (more likely, because) it's central to your assertion.

How much would the difference in force between the two rails be for a 200,000 kg locomotive traveling due north in the northern hemisphere on rails separated by, say, 1.5 meters at, say, 30 m/s? Pick other parameters if you prefer, but specify them. The weight of this locomotive would be roughly 2,000 kN (nominally 1,000 kN per rail if it were evenly loaded and no extra issues like engine torque were involved). Feel free to express the answer in microNewtons, milliNewtons, Newtons, ounces-force, pounds-force or whatever unit seems most appropriate, but please specify the units of force you do decide to use.

How much is the difference? Please show the work.

You claim I said it was overwhelmingly in one direction - I did not.

Seriously? The post where you said it is still there.

Here it is, QFT:

Quote from: John Davis on December 07, 2017, 05:44:38 PM

Yes, but why would it overwhelmingly be in the direction against the rotation of the earth?

Quote from: John Davis on December 08, 2017, 08:23:57 AM

You claim I was the one that brought inertia into the discussion - I did not.

For the record, I said you were the only one that mentioned inertia in the block of text that you quoted and were responding to. You still haven't shown where anyone (but you) denies that inertia exists for objects in contact with the ground. Please don't bother trying, since that was only an attempt at diversion, anyway.

Quote

You, sir, are the one doing the dodging. Now answer the question:
"Why would rotation cause a pull in a direction opposite to the rotation?"

*Sigh*

For the same reason it will cause a deflection in a direction the same as the rotation.

The Coriolis effect on earth is the deflection of a ballistic object (one affected only by gravity) to the right with respect to the direction of travel in the northern hemisphere. Deflection "to the right" is eastward for objects traveling north and westward for objects traveling south. Eastward is in the same direction as the rotation of the earth.

The reason why this happens was already explained (with calculations!) in this post earlier in this thread.

Quote

As it stands, I can't make any calculations because <lame excuses>.

You can't make any calculations, period. If you could, and you thought they supported what you claim, you'd provide them using the same assumptions that went into this assertion:

Come back when you care about facts and reason, son.

My hypothesis is within the globular context. If I didn't hinge on globluarist misinterpretations of physics, I'd have a flat earth with no uneven wear on railroads and we'd be done with this conversation. If you can't define your own model, how do you know if you even believe in it?

Ok I'm glad we all finally agree that strings don't change how inertia works.

Quote from: John Davis on December 07, 2017, 05:44:38 PM

Yes, but why would it overwhelmingly be in the direction against the rotation of the earth?

So you now agree then that I didn't say it would be in one direction, but instead in the direction against the rotation of the earth?

I know that you believe you understand what you think I said, but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.

I quoted where they said that already. This is getting tiresome, if you aren't going to read the posts in the thread, why should I go out of my way to requote them just for you to ignore them yet again?

I see no point to continue discussions with an angry globularist that fails to read what I post, and others have in this thread, but then has the [gall] to insult without basis.

Come back when you care about facts and reason, son.