Long Time listener first time caller

  • 107 Replies
  • 9507 Views
?

robintex

  • Ranters
  • 5322
Re: Long Time listener first time caller
« Reply #30 on: December 04, 2017, 09:40:09 AM »
If you really were in construction then please explain how you used water to obtain the level for your foundation as opposed to surveying equipment.

A bucket of water, a clear plastic hose and a little patience. The poor man's dumpy level.
Actually pretty handy for interior work like wainscoting and suspended ceilings in multiple rooms where you need level points and line of site is a hassle.   Just drag hose around and one person can do it.
I think it works because of denspressure.

There is no such thing as "level", so get that out of your mind.

I have an old book about the history of early electric interurban railways.
It describes the rails as being "on tangent" instead of being "level".
Stick close , very close , to your P.C.and never go to sea
And you all may be Rulers of The Flat Earth Society

Look out your window , see what you shall see
And you all may be Rulers of The Flat Earth Society

Chorus:
Yes ! Never, never, never,  ever go to sea !

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 16862
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: Long Time listener first time caller
« Reply #31 on: December 04, 2017, 10:15:10 AM »
Very glad to have you here! The idea of a globe is indeed ridiculous; don't let those who are angry at the inconsistency of their beliefs stay you away from this forum with their constant projection.
Quantum Ab Hoc

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 16862
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: Long Time listener first time caller
« Reply #32 on: December 04, 2017, 10:16:36 AM »
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.
Quantum Ab Hoc

*

Crutchwater

  • 2151
  • Stop Indoctrinating me!
Re: Long Time listener first time caller
« Reply #33 on: December 04, 2017, 10:27:05 AM »
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.

Well, that is some absolute horseshit, and you know it!
I will always be Here To Laugh At You.

*

Luke 22:35-38

  • 3598
  • The earth is a globe, DUH! prove its not
Re: Long Time listener first time caller
« Reply #34 on: December 04, 2017, 11:13:34 AM »
Shalom and welcome to the trenches.
The Bible doesn't support a flat earth.

Scripture, facts, science, stats, and logic is how I argue.

*

Luke 22:35-38

  • 3598
  • The earth is a globe, DUH! prove its not
Re: Long Time listener first time caller
« Reply #35 on: December 04, 2017, 11:16:47 AM »
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.

How so? Everything is moving with the earth. So just as your drink don't go flying to the back seat when you're driving 70 mph, railroad ties wouldnt wear out un evenly because the trains are moving with the earth.
The Bible doesn't support a flat earth.

Scripture, facts, science, stats, and logic is how I argue.

?

robintex

  • Ranters
  • 5322
Re: Long Time listener first time caller
« Reply #36 on: December 04, 2017, 11:40:06 AM »
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.

Well, that is some absolute horseshit, and you know it!

Never mind.
If I may be pardoned for saying it.
John Davis is just one more reason why this website is getting a reputatiion  of being so bad.
He is really making it look even worse than it already is.
You may not recognize it or not from the posts on this website, but some of the people to whom I have mentioned this website say they avoid this website entitrely is because of persons like John Davis, jroa, jrowe, sceptimatic and others.
They have more sense than I have. LOL.
It's not polite, courteous or proper to call a person a liar, but some posts by some persons, do lead one to believe this just might be so...about ships and sunsets.

The earth make one revolution in one day = 24 hours
24 hours x 60 minutes per hour  = 1440 minutes per day.
The speed of the earth "whirling around  in space"  is  1/1440 =  0.000694 RPM.
Same speed as the hour hand on a 24 hour clock.
« Last Edit: December 04, 2017, 06:08:58 PM by Googleotomy »
Stick close , very close , to your P.C.and never go to sea
And you all may be Rulers of The Flat Earth Society

Look out your window , see what you shall see
And you all may be Rulers of The Flat Earth Society

Chorus:
Yes ! Never, never, never,  ever go to sea !

Re: Long Time listener first time caller
« Reply #37 on: December 04, 2017, 12:22:40 PM »
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.

Why do you think this would be? Can you define "ridiculous speed" and explain why you think it's ridiculous?

Quote
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.

I'd like to see the analysis leading to this conclusion. Please show your work.
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 16862
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: Long Time listener first time caller
« Reply #38 on: December 04, 2017, 12:44:37 PM »
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.

How so? Everything is moving with the earth. So just as your drink don't go flying to the back seat when you're driving 70 mph, railroad ties wouldnt wear out un evenly because the trains are moving with the earth.
Rotational acceleration is not conserved, just as a globularist might argue that a sharpshooter needs to account for the spin of earth, or an artillery expert might, or toilet boils might flush opposite given the Coriolis force.

You can read about the analysis in our library. For example, Carpenter I know talks of this, as do many others.

In your example, if the car was turning, your drink would certainly move. This is a consequence of acceleration. Likewise, if it was not a constant 70mph it would also experience movement of the drink. Again, jumping on an accelerating train should show movement horizontally of the jumper.

It is a universal fact, and I am humoured to find the globularists in this thread are baffled by what amounts to high school physics as they claim I'm making our view look bad.
« Last Edit: December 04, 2017, 12:50:20 PM by John Davis »
Quantum Ab Hoc

Re: Long Time listener first time caller
« Reply #39 on: December 04, 2017, 01:19:14 PM »
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.

Can you quantify the unevenness in wear that would be expected according to the accepted model of the rotating, revolving earth? What factors are involved? By how much does observed unevenness in wear depart from that expected? Specific examples would support your case.

Re: Long Time listener first time caller
« Reply #40 on: December 04, 2017, 03:35:25 PM »
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.

Can you quantify the unevenness in wear that would be expected according to the accepted model of the rotating, revolving earth? What factors are involved? By how much does observed unevenness in wear depart from that expected? Specific examples would support your case.
I believe that job would befit someone who believes the Earth is rotating.

That would be you, right?

John clearly states "rotational acceleration is not conserved."

Not only that, but I do not think he believes the Earth is rotating.

Since he does not believe the Earth is rotating and since he states "rotational acceleration is not conserved," (something I believe to be true by the absence of perpetual motion machines), then why don't you do the work?

Re: Long Time listener first time caller
« Reply #41 on: December 04, 2017, 05:25:40 PM »
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.

How so? Everything is moving with the earth. So just as your drink don't go flying to the back seat when you're driving 70 mph, railroad ties wouldnt wear out un evenly because the trains are moving with the earth.
Rotational acceleration is not conserved, just as a globularist might argue that a sharpshooter needs to account for the spin of earth, or an artillery expert might, or toilet boils might flush opposite given the Coriolis force.

The notion that direction that the water circulates in draining toilets, sinks, bathtubs, etc. is opposite in the northern and southern hemispheres is well known to be false by anyone familiar with the subject, even though as a popular notion it lives on. https://www.snopes.com/science/coriolis.asp

Ballistics are different if the length of the trajectory of a projectile becomes somewhat long. For instance, if you fired a .50 caliber Barrett rifle due north from the equator, how much correction for the Coriolis effect would be needed?

Let's say its range is 1 nautical mile (6076.1 ft; originally defined as 1/60 degree of latitude); that's pretty close to its published range (1969 yards), and makes the math easier. Muzzle velocity is stated to be 2,799 ft/s, so the projectile is in flight for, call it 2.2 seconds. At the equator, the earth's rotation is to the east at 24,900 mi / 24 h = 1038 mi/hr = 1521.666666667 ft/sec. At 1 minute north latitude, this eastward rotational speed is 1520 ft/sec * cos (0.0167) = 1,521.6666020 ft/sec, s, a difference of 6.438 X 10-5 ft/sec, for a total deflection of 1.416 X 10-4 feet, or 0.0017 inches (1.7 mils) to the east (right) of the intended point. Compared to the 0.5 inch diameter of the projectile, that's not much, over a distance of more than 6000 feet. At the poles the Coriolis effect is greatest. If you're at the north pole fire this rifle at a target 1 nm away, its eastward velocity is 0 (mi/hr, ft/sec, furlongs/fortnight, whatever). 1' of latitude away, the eastward rotational velocity is 1521.666666667 ft/sec * cos (89.8333) = 0.443 ft/sec, so in the 2.2 seconds of flight, the projectile will pass 0.97 feet to the right (west) of the target, which is pretty significant.

So, clearly, the latitude you're looking at makes a significant difference.

Anyway... since the Coriolis effect can differ by almost five orders of magnitude when measured over a mile from the equator and from a pole, what latitude were you considering when you surmised that the Coriolis effect was significant between rails about 5 feet apart?

The fact remains that the Coriolis effect is significant only for large-scale phenomena, not toilets, and kitchen sinks.

Quote
You can read about the analysis in our library. For example, Carpenter I know talks of this, as do many others.

In your example, if the car was turning, your drink would certainly move. This is a consequence of acceleration. Likewise, if it was not a constant 70mph it would also experience movement of the drink. Again, jumping on an accelerating train should show movement horizontally of the jumper.

It is a universal fact, and I am humoured to find the globularists in this thread are baffled by what amounts to high school physics as they claim I'm making our view look bad.

I'm glad you get a chuckle out of the questions. Lord knows, I've gotten many from some of the zany assertions made in defense of the flat earth!

At any rate, I see no analysis quantifying how much you would expect one side of a railroad track to be worn more than another due solely to the rotation of the earth. Since you confidently made the assertion, it is natural to ask why you think it is correct when there is no obvious logical reason to expect it.

Have you considered that any small effect there might be will reverse if two trains are traveling in opposite directions? A vague suggestion to "go to our library" is not an analysis. Some specific examples of how much additional force would be applied to one rail compared to the other given the rotation rate (1/24 hrs is close enough), and whether or not you believe trains always travel the same direction on a given stretch of track, would be enlightening.

This is all high-school level physics. Unless you can provide some convincing enlightenment to the contrary, it does make you look bad.
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

?

robintex

  • Ranters
  • 5322
Re: Long Time listener first time caller
« Reply #42 on: December 04, 2017, 06:11:30 PM »
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.

How so? Everything is moving with the earth. So just as your drink don't go flying to the back seat when you're driving 70 mph, railroad ties wouldnt wear out un evenly because the trains are moving with the earth.
Rotational acceleration is not conserved, just as a globularist might argue that a sharpshooter needs to account for the spin of earth, or an artillery expert might, or toilet boils might flush opposite given the Coriolis force.

You can read about the analysis in our library. For example, Carpenter I know talks of this, as do many others.

In your example, if the car was turning, your drink would certainly move. This is a consequence of acceleration. Likewise, if it was not a constant 70mph it would also experience movement of the drink. Again, jumping on an accelerating train should show movement horizontally of the jumper.

It is a universal fact, and I am humoured to find the globularists in this thread are baffled by what amounts to high school physics as they claim I'm making our view look bad.

The earth is not accelerating. It is turning at a constant speed.
Stick close , very close , to your P.C.and never go to sea
And you all may be Rulers of The Flat Earth Society

Look out your window , see what you shall see
And you all may be Rulers of The Flat Earth Society

Chorus:
Yes ! Never, never, never,  ever go to sea !

*

Luke 22:35-38

  • 3598
  • The earth is a globe, DUH! prove its not
Re: Long Time listener first time caller
« Reply #43 on: December 04, 2017, 06:17:56 PM »
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.

How so? Everything is moving with the earth. So just as your drink don't go flying to the back seat when you're driving 70 mph, railroad ties wouldnt wear out un evenly because the trains are moving with the earth.
Rotational acceleration is not conserved, just as a globularist might argue that a sharpshooter needs to account for the spin of earth, or an artillery expert might, or toilet boils might flush opposite given the Coriolis force.

As for the first two, the reason for that is because once a projectile leaves contact with solid ground, it's more or less free from the rotational forces. At least that's how I understand it. The fact that you said yourself snipers account for the rotation of the earth proves that the earth spins. The last one is a misconception. The Coriolis affect has little bearing on the direction of toilets flushing. It's more so to do with the direction of the jets than anything else.

Quote
You can read about the analysis in our library. For example, Carpenter I know talks of this, as do many others.

In your example, if the car was turning, your drink would certainly move.

Actually that depends on how fast and sharp the driver takes the turn. If you drive on a highway and there's a gradual, constant bend in the in the road then your drink would not move.

Quote
This is a consequence of acceleration. Likewise, if it was not a constant 70mph it would also experience movement of the drink. Again, jumping on an accelerating train should show movement horizontally of the jumper.

It is a universal fact, and I am humoured to find the globularists in this thread are baffled by what amounts to high school physics as they claim I'm making our view look bad.
It's a universal fact that you are misinterpreting.
The Bible doesn't support a flat earth.

Scripture, facts, science, stats, and logic is how I argue.

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Long Time listener first time caller
« Reply #44 on: December 04, 2017, 06:31:20 PM »
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.
Do you realise just how ridiculous your suggestions sounds?
What evidence do you have that wear significant reduces the service life of even wooden ties?

Please explain, with any relevant math, just why "railroad ties would receive uneven wear" when tied to a massive sphere rotating once every 23.9344699 hours!

That's a tiny bit faster than half the rotation rate of the hour hand of a clock.
You didn't even suggest that we drag Coriolis into it. You're slipping!

Re: Long Time listener first time caller
« Reply #45 on: December 04, 2017, 06:59:40 PM »
No they do not appear to tilt away beause they would only tilt 1 when 111 km (about 69 miles) away and that would be quite impossible to detect.

This is not quite true. if the curve of the earth is Distance squared x 8" then 3 miles would be six feet of curve. So looking across Lake Michigan at Chicago sky line which is over 3 miles you would see the tops of the buildings at the greater distances apart tilting away.

Now I am a builder and I can see a 1/4" out of level in 6 feet. So my eyes do not lie to me in square, level or plumb. And I would say that most people can see pretty well.

Re: Long Time listener first time caller
« Reply #46 on: December 04, 2017, 07:06:58 PM »
If you really were in construction then please explain how you used water to obtain the level for your foundation as opposed to surveying equipment.

A bucket of water, a clear plastic hose and a little patience. The poor man's dumpy level.
Actually pretty handy for interior work like wainscoting and suspended ceilings in multiple rooms where you need level points and line of site is a hassle.   Just drag hose around and one person can do it.
I think it works because of denspressure.

There is no such thing as "level", so get that out of your mind.

You go to the store and you buy attachments for a water hose, you then proceed to fill the hose up with water making sure to get all the air bubbles out of the middle of the hose, then you cap it you set the one end at the point where you are seeking to level and uncap the ends and see where the water levels out in the clear portion you have purchased. Now you cap it again move the one end to the area you wish to make level with your reference point and again uncap the hose, now you move the hose up and down until you have obtained the level you made at your reference point.

The Egyptians used water to level the base for the pyramids.

Re: Long Time listener first time caller
« Reply #47 on: December 04, 2017, 07:53:06 PM »
No they do not appear to tilt away beause they would only tilt 1 when 111 km (about 69 miles) away and that would be quite impossible to detect.

This is not quite true.

It is quite true. A vertical line 1 from another vertical line will tilt away by 1. Period.

Quote
if the curve of the earth is Distance squared x 8" then 3 miles would be six feet of curve. So looking across Lake Michigan at Chicago sky line which is over 3 miles you would see the tops of the buildings at the greater distances apart tilting away.

So what? What is the angle? Hint: it's about 3 minutes (1/20 of a degree) of arc.

How much would they "tilt away" from you if they are, say, 500 feet tall?
Quote
Now I am a builder and I can see a 1/4" out of level in 6 feet. So my eyes do not lie to me in square, level or plumb. And I would say that most people can see pretty well.

That's pretty impressive, if true. Can you tell if something is is off plumb by 1/20 degree directly away from you from 3 miles away? That would be much more impressive.

Two 1,000-foot tall buildings with their bases 3 miles apart would be less than 1 foot further apart at the top than if they were parallel. You can see and recognize that?
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: Long Time listener first time caller
« Reply #48 on: December 04, 2017, 07:59:30 PM »
If you really were in construction then please explain how you used water to obtain the level for your foundation as opposed to surveying equipment.

A bucket of water, a clear plastic hose and a little patience. The poor man's dumpy level.
Actually pretty handy for interior work like wainscoting and suspended ceilings in multiple rooms where you need level points and line of site is a hassle.   Just drag hose around and one person can do it.
I think it works because of denspressure.

There is no such thing as "level", so get that out of your mind.

You go to the store and you buy attachments for a water hose, you then proceed to fill the hose up with water making sure to get all the air bubbles out of the middle of the hose, then you cap it you set the one end at the point where you are seeking to level and uncap the ends and see where the water levels out in the clear portion you have purchased. Now you cap it again move the one end to the area you wish to make level with your reference point and again uncap the hose, now you move the hose up and down until you have obtained the level you made at your reference point.

The Egyptians used water to level the base for the pyramids.

How far apart are these measurements?

If you drew a perfectly straight line between two such water levels (assuming the temperature of the water, barometric pressure, and a few other odds and ends were exactly the same at both ends) true level would be midway between them. Unless the ends are thousands of feet apart, any difference between flat and spherical earth would be truly negligible.

What are you trying to show?
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Long Time listener first time caller
« Reply #49 on: December 04, 2017, 08:29:34 PM »
No they do not appear to tilt away beause they would only tilt 1 when 111 km (about 69 miles) away and that would be quite impossible to detect.

This is not quite true. if the curve of the earth is Distance squared x 8" then 3 miles would be six feet of curve. So looking across Lake Michigan at Chicago sky line which is over 3 miles you would see the tops of the buildings at the greater distances apart tilting away.
Chicago from New Buffalo across Lake Michigan is 40 miles (about 64 km) and the highest building in Chicago is, I believe, Willis Tower at 442 m (just trumping Trump).
This building would lean back less than 0.6 and the top would be about 4.4 m further away than the base, not that you could see the base.

I claim again that there is no way, even with a telescope you could see a tilt back of less than 0.6.

Quote from: Dirtdigger19
Now I am a builder and I can see a 1/4" out of level in 6 feet. So my eyes do not lie to me in square, level or plumb. And I would say that most people can see pretty well.
Sure,  I'll believe that you might "see a 1/4" out of level in 6 feet", but that is one part in 288 and 4.4 m in 64 km is close to one part in 15,000.
That's a whole new kettle of fish! Not only that.
If you are checking a stud for plumb you don't attempt it with the stud leaning away from you - there's no chance that would be possible.
You would do the check for the stud leaning left or right.

So, no there is no chance of seeing buildings tilting back.

By the way, under normal conditions much of Chicago can certainly be hidden by the curve on Lake Michigan.
Take a look at Chicago As Seen From Around South Lake Michigan Posted on June 13, 2014 by Matthew Wolf.
Here's the "Joshua Nowicki 'superior mirage' from the Chicago skyline" and a few others taken under different condidtions.

Mirage of the Chicago Skyline from
Grand Mere State Park
   

Chicago from New Buffalo,
MI (40 miles from skyline)
   

Chicago from Michigan City,
IN (33 miles from skyline) - the lake ate 1/2 the sun too!
It's funny how, except for the so-called mirage photo, as you get closer, more and more of Chicago appears - and still there's more!

Chicago from Burns Harbor, IN (26 miles from skyline)
   

Chicago from Whiting, IN (15 miles from skyline)
   

Chicago from Harold Washington Park, IL
(6 miles from skyline)
Somehow it seems that the closer you get, the less is hidden! Maybe that lake really is curved.

Re: Long Time listener first time caller
« Reply #50 on: December 04, 2017, 09:00:49 PM »
Can I say wow and not get a flaming response, probably not.

I see that this FES disscussion board seems to be mostly for profane language and name calling.

I have moved actually very quickly to believing the earth is flat for the past year, I am 53 years old so yes I was taught to believe everything I was told. I am a bible believer also so believing it a flat earth has come easier as scripture matches up to flat verses globe much better, but that is another flame that will come on.

You see I believe more in flat as I am 53 years old and I realize that my eyes do not lie buildings do not tilt away, the ocean is flat as water seeks its own level and many other observations that do not fit a globe spinning. Physics is another one that does not work for a globe. Anyway I am sure these all have been discussed here multiple times.

What I do not like about most comments is people bashing each other and not actually bringing evidence to the table. I am not saying I am 100% convinced about the earth being flat yet those who adhere to it sure do a lot of name calling for their cause.

Anyway stepping back so I do not get burned.

Yes stepping back out of Plato's cave is the thing to do, where the flat earth is showing on the cave wall, it is very convincing, but it is wrong. Don't get lost, the cave entrance is just directly behind you. The real world awaits you.
The the universe has no obligation to makes sense to you.
The earth is a globe.

Re: Long Time listener first time caller
« Reply #51 on: December 05, 2017, 12:40:55 AM »
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.

Can you quantify the unevenness in wear that would be expected according to the accepted model of the rotating, revolving earth? What factors are involved? By how much does observed unevenness in wear depart from that expected? Specific examples would support your case.
I believe that job would befit someone who believes the Earth is rotating.

That would be you, right?

John clearly states "rotational acceleration is not conserved."

Not only that, but I do not think he believes the Earth is rotating.

Since he does not believe the Earth is rotating and since he states "rotational acceleration is not conserved," (something I believe to be true by the absence of perpetual motion machines), then why don't you do the work?

It's John's claim that a spinning globe would result in uneven wear. It's John's further claim that such expected wear is not observed. I've asked John to quantify his first claim and provide evidence for his second.

I've made no claims here; John has. Why should the work fall to me?

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 16862
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: Long Time listener first time caller
« Reply #52 on: December 05, 2017, 07:41:21 AM »
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.

How so? Everything is moving with the earth. So just as your drink don't go flying to the back seat when you're driving 70 mph, railroad ties wouldnt wear out un evenly because the trains are moving with the earth.
Rotational acceleration is not conserved, just as a globularist might argue that a sharpshooter needs to account for the spin of earth, or an artillery expert might, or toilet boils might flush opposite given the Coriolis force.

You can read about the analysis in our library. For example, Carpenter I know talks of this, as do many others.

In your example, if the car was turning, your drink would certainly move. This is a consequence of acceleration. Likewise, if it was not a constant 70mph it would also experience movement of the drink. Again, jumping on an accelerating train should show movement horizontally of the jumper.

It is a universal fact, and I am humoured to find the globularists in this thread are baffled by what amounts to high school physics as they claim I'm making our view look bad.

The earth is not accelerating. It is turning at a constant speed.
Oh boy!

I'd love to hear your very unique definition of acceleration. I'll sit here and continue to 'make our view look bad' while you fumble about with that.

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.

How so? Everything is moving with the earth. So just as your drink don't go flying to the back seat when you're driving 70 mph, railroad ties wouldnt wear out un evenly because the trains are moving with the earth.
Rotational acceleration is not conserved, just as a globularist might argue that a sharpshooter needs to account for the spin of earth, or an artillery expert might, or toilet boils might flush opposite given the Coriolis force.

As for the first two, the reason for that is because once a projectile leaves contact with solid ground, it's more or less free from the rotational forces. At least that's how I understand it. The fact that you said yourself snipers account for the rotation of the earth proves that the earth spins. The last one is a misconception. The Coriolis affect has little bearing on the direction of toilets flushing. It's more so to do with the direction of the jets than anything else.
The idea that since something is 'enclosed' or 'not touching ground' it magically ignores physics is ludicrous. The basis of the elevator thought experiment, for example, directly contradicts this.

Quote
Quote
You can read about the analysis in our library. For example, Carpenter I know talks of this, as do many others.

In your example, if the car was turning, your drink would certainly move.

Actually that depends on how fast and sharp the driver takes the turn. If you drive on a highway and there's a gradual, constant bend in the in the road then your drink would not move.

Quote
This is a consequence of acceleration. Likewise, if it was not a constant 70mph it would also experience movement of the drink. Again, jumping on an accelerating train should show movement horizontally of the jumper.

It is a universal fact, and I am humoured to find the globularists in this thread are baffled by what amounts to high school physics as they claim I'm making our view look bad.
It's a universal fact that you are misinterpreting.
I most certainly am not, and have done nothing to show I am.

It matters not how fast and sharp the turn is, this just determines the third derivative - the jerk. We are talking in this case about the second - the acceleration. There will be a change in acceleration (and thus the feeling of a pseudo-force or inertia, and thus relative movement to the container object) if there is a change in speed or direction.
« Last Edit: December 05, 2017, 07:46:50 AM by John Davis »
Quantum Ab Hoc

*

Luke 22:35-38

  • 3598
  • The earth is a globe, DUH! prove its not
Re: Long Time listener first time caller
« Reply #53 on: December 05, 2017, 08:29:12 AM »
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.

How so? Everything is moving with the earth. So just as your drink don't go flying to the back seat when you're driving 70 mph, railroad ties wouldnt wear out un evenly because the trains are moving with the earth.
Rotational acceleration is not conserved, just as a globularist might argue that a sharpshooter needs to account for the spin of earth, or an artillery expert might, or toilet boils might flush opposite given the Coriolis force.

You can read about the analysis in our library. For example, Carpenter I know talks of this, as do many others.

In your example, if the car was turning, your drink would certainly move. This is a consequence of acceleration. Likewise, if it was not a constant 70mph it would also experience movement of the drink. Again, jumping on an accelerating train should show movement horizontally of the jumper.

It is a universal fact, and I am humoured to find the globularists in this thread are baffled by what amounts to high school physics as they claim I'm making our view look bad.

The earth is not accelerating. It is turning at a constant speed.
Oh boy!

I'd love to hear your very unique definition of acceleration. I'll sit here and continue to 'make our view look bad' while you fumble about with that.

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.

How so? Everything is moving with the earth. So just as your drink don't go flying to the back seat when you're driving 70 mph, railroad ties wouldnt wear out un evenly because the trains are moving with the earth.
Rotational acceleration is not conserved, just as a globularist might argue that a sharpshooter needs to account for the spin of earth, or an artillery expert might, or toilet boils might flush opposite given the Coriolis force.

As for the first two, the reason for that is because once a projectile leaves contact with solid ground, it's more or less free from the rotational forces. At least that's how I understand it. The fact that you said yourself snipers account for the rotation of the earth proves that the earth spins. The last one is a misconception. The Coriolis affect has little bearing on the direction of toilets flushing. It's more so to do with the direction of the jets than anything else.
The idea that since something is 'enclosed' or 'not touching ground' it magically ignores physics is ludicrous. The basis of the elevator thought experiment, for example, directly contradicts this.

The elevator is connected to the building via cables and the walls and thus not truly free from the rotational forces. But this is all off track (pun intended) from your claim that if the earth was spinning, the railroad tracks would be uneven. What makes you think that?
Quote
Quote
Quote
You can read about the analysis in our library. For example, Carpenter I know talks of this, as do many others.

In your example, if the car was turning, your drink would certainly move.

Actually that depends on how fast and sharp the driver takes the turn. If you drive on a highway and there's a gradual, constant bend in the in the road then your drink would not move.

Quote
This is a consequence of acceleration. Likewise, if it was not a constant 70mph it would also experience movement of the drink. Again, jumping on an accelerating train should show movement horizontally of the jumper.

It is a universal fact, and I am humoured to find the globularists in this thread are baffled by what amounts to high school physics as they claim I'm making our view look bad.
It's a universal fact that you are misinterpreting.
I most certainly am not, and have done nothing to show I am.

It matters not how fast and sharp the turn is, this just determines the third derivative - the jerk. We are talking in this case about the second - the acceleration. There will be a change in acceleration (and thus the feeling of a pseudo-force or inertia, and thus relative movement to the container object) if there is a change in speed or direction.

But there isn't with the rotation of the earth. The earth spins and the same rate as the hour hand on a clock. You will not feel anything if something is going that slow. If you ever been on a motorized merry-go-round (forgot what they're called) then you'll realize what I'm talking about. That thing is is going at least 5 mph with at least a 30 ft diameter. You hardly feel the inertia of it spinning. You definitely won't feel it going 70 mph on a highway curve.
The Bible doesn't support a flat earth.

Scripture, facts, science, stats, and logic is how I argue.

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 16862
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: Long Time listener first time caller
« Reply #54 on: December 05, 2017, 08:56:22 AM »
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.
Quantum Ab Hoc

Re: Long Time listener first time caller
« Reply #55 on: December 05, 2017, 09:01:45 AM »
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.
How much more wear?  Does the density of railroad traffic affect the wear?  What is the rate at which train tracks are currently replaced? Where did you find data on the actual real world replacement of train tracks?  I didn't see a source in your post. 

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 16862
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: Long Time listener first time caller
« Reply #56 on: December 05, 2017, 09:10:34 AM »
Yes, common sense would lead us to believe the density of traffic would affect the wear. This, of course, is not original research. As I cited earlier, I am referencing the work of Carpenter, as well as many others, all available within our library. I assume you are not amongst the hordes of globularists that would sooner die than pick up a tome, so I would point you towards the library Daniel Shenton graciously compiled.
Quantum Ab Hoc

*

Crutchwater

  • 2151
  • Stop Indoctrinating me!
Re: Long Time listener first time caller
« Reply #57 on: December 05, 2017, 09:12:54 AM »
This is the greatest mind of our generation, people...

Lack of asymmetrical wear on railroad tracks proves the Earth is flat!
I will always be Here To Laugh At You.

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 16862
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: Long Time listener first time caller
« Reply #58 on: December 05, 2017, 09:30:30 AM »
Carpenter is the greatest mind of our generation? He's not even in our generation, unless you are FAR older than I presume.

That's ok. When the globularist mind is faced with the plane facts, it often resorts to petty attacks as it grasps straws.

Of course it does not prove the earth is flat - such a thing is not possible as it is only possible to evidence a fact not show it. This evidence directly contradicts globularist theory thus disproving it. Have you not wondered why its phrased "Earth: Not A Globe?" Its because that's how zeteticism, empiricism, and knowledge in general works.

I suppose you could attempt to throw falsification out as a criteron of science, but then you'd be left with the task of debunking and reasserting every point made in The Logic of Scientific Discovery. You'd likely just end up with Against Method.
« Last Edit: December 05, 2017, 09:34:32 AM by John Davis »
Quantum Ab Hoc

*

Nightsky

  • 900
  • Know the implications of what you believe.
Re: Long Time listener first time caller
« Reply #59 on: December 05, 2017, 10:24:59 AM »
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.
Rubbish...have you any idea about the tiny forces involved? I challenge you to show me your calculations. Wind, friction, inherent out of balance forces due to line imperfection would render what your on about null and void....but please show me your sums, I believe you are a programmer...so write a script that will churn the results out, otherwise I call your claim false.
You can call me Gwyneth
I said that
Oh for the love of- Logical formulation:
FET is wrong, unsupported by evidence, and most models are refuted on multiple fronts; those that aren't tend not to make enough predictions to be realistically falsifiable
Jane said these