Open minded

I haven't looked into it very seriously, but isn't the centripetal force of "the spinning globe" a factor of keeping the water from flying off the globe by pulling the water to the center of the globe ?

The centrifugal force would throw the water from the surface. All circular momentum throws object that are not affixed to the object. Spin a metal ball with a magnet to it, once you reach a certain momentum, the magnet will fly off the metal ball. ( I actually done this experiment.)

Quote from: Googleotomy on July 12, 2018, 11:12:26 AM

I haven't looked into it very seriously, but isn't the centripetal force of "the spinning globe" a factor of keeping the water from flying off the globe by pulling the water to the center of the globe ?

The centrifugal force would throw the water from the surface. All circular momentum throws object that are not affixed to the object. Spin a metal ball with a magnet to it, once you reach a certain momentum, the magnet will fly off the metal ball. ( I actually done this experiment.)

Can you calculate how much force is exerted by the spin of the Earth on an object at the equator? Say 1 kg of water at the equator. We know there are 9.8 newtons pushing it down. How much is centripetal force acting upwards on it?

https://physicstasks.eu/929/centrifugal-force-on-the-equator I don't trust my math, but at the equator according to this link is 2.8 newtons. Arguably, not enough to make anything fly off according to math only, but you have to assume that the pull of gravity is a universal constant. Sadly, it is considered not a constant as their are a few complications to this. ( I.E law of density, electromagnetic fields,etc.) Gravity by itself nor any of the other laws explain clouds. I have heard debates regarding this subject and the fact of the matter is that objects with less mass experience less gravitational pull.( Rain Drops) The idea with clouds is that when the water droplets get large enough to become greater in density than the air around it, it drops. There are many laws regarding a lot of the explanations going on in the universe, a lot of them are based on empirical science. I am one to simply state that if we can't observe or test it, it is not science. ( I.E BIg bang and Evolution.) I can science that, you are using a lot of math for your arguments. But is any of these mathematical equations testable in the sense that we can create a scenario where the centrifugal force is strong enough to remove something from the earths surface? ITs simply not testable. IT can be observed but not tested. It is only possible to test with math. "Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality." Just as a random point, the heliocentric model and the big bang are not compatible.

https://physicstasks.eu/929/centrifugal-force-on-the-equator I don't trust my math, but at the equator according to this link is 2.8 newtons.

I believe your math may be off by 2 decimal places. Did you forget that % means 1/100th? So for example 1% is 0.01 * x or 0.1% is 0.001 * x. Crunch that again, and I'm sure you'll see where your mistake was.

Arguably, not enough to make anything fly off according to math only...

The math doesn't lie. You made a mistake, but the math will show you whether or not you should expect water to fly off the Earth.

I can science that, you are using a lot of math for your arguments. But is any of these mathematical equations testable in the sense that we can create a scenario where the centrifugal force is strong enough to remove something from the earths surface? ITs simply not testable. IT can be observed but not tested. It is only possible to test with math. "Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality."

You are calling into question the distinction between mathematical models and empirical evidence. I can dig that. That said, we get our mathematical equations based on observations. We first observed that spinning objects feel an outward force. We measure the force and deduce the relationship between them. This gives us a mathematical equation. We test that equation up, down, and sideways to make sure it is accurate in every way we can. By now, we can be certain, the centripetal force equation is extremely accurate.

Next, we take it into the realm of the theoretical. Why should it match this equation? We do some calculus based on the equations of motion (which were arrived at using the same empirical methods) and we realize. Of course! The equation must work this way. In order to be consistent with all of our observations, the equations have to work like this.

If you wanted to, you could follow the history of the first scientists and mathematicians to make these discoveries. For me, it's enough that the equations work. They match up with any experiment I can do, so I trust them. In physics class we had to derive some of these, so I can trust that too.

The bottom line is simple. Sometimes, the real world can surprise you with unexpected results. You expected the water on the ball to experience much more force than it does. The real world isn't lying to you, your expectations of it were wrong. That's all. The force you calculate for the water (when you fix your math) will be tiny.

Still don't believe it? Measure it! That's right measure it. Travel to a few places on the Earth with a high-precision scale and prove it. Does an object really weigh a tiny bit less at the equator than it does up near the north pole? It'll cost you some airline tickets to try this out yourself, or you could hook up with some collaborators and test it by sending your scale and a test weight around the world. I know of a guy who is doing that if you want.

Send me contact information for this guy, we can actually use him as a subject to more than one experiment. IM a poor 25 year old guy who has a family to take care of. It is asking a lot of me to pay for these tickets to travel.

Send me contact information for this guy, we can actually use him as a subject to more than one experiment. IM a poor 25 year old guy who has a family to take care of. It is asking a lot of me to pay for these tickets to travel.

Here's the youtube video he made:

He mentioned somewhere that he's willing to mail his scale around and get samples from around the globe.

Back to the topic... water won't fly off the globe under the RE model. You showed it with your own math (if you fixed your decimal point).

I can science that, you are correct, however the force called "gravity" or simply put the attraction of mass toward the center of the earth is subjective at best, since it is the only theory where the force is a known law.

Can you cite any objective study that concludes that the force of gravity is subjective?

If the force of gravity pulls down everything, a force must push it against so What force is exactly equal to clouds? Clouds are extremely heavy, yet defy gravity.

Does an aeroplane 'defy' gravity? If so, how? What explanations are given for clouds staying aloft? Have you researched this?

https://physicstasks.eu/929/centrifugal-force-on-the-equator I don't trust my math, but at the equator according to this link is 2.8 newtons. Arguably, not enough to make anything fly off according to math only, but you have to assume that the pull of gravity is a universal constant. Sadly, it is considered not a constant as their are a few complications to this. ( I.E law of density, electromagnetic fields,etc.) Gravity by itself nor any of the other laws explain clouds. I have heard debates regarding this subject and the fact of the matter is that objects with less mass experience less gravitational pull.( Rain Drops) The idea with clouds is that when the water droplets get large enough to become greater in density than the air around it, it drops.

No! "the water droplets get large enough to become greater in density than the air around it" is quite incorrect!
Liquid water does not change density significantly, but the smaller droplets have much more air resistance and fall much slower than the larger drops.
So the smaller droplets need only a very small updraft to keep them suspended. Read again:

First the the clouds come from water evaporated from ground level - lakes, rivers, the oceans and damp ground.
Now water vapour is a lot less dense than so floats forming an updraft but finally reaches cooler air where the vapour condenses into the tiny droplets that form clouds.

The average droplet size in clouds is only from 10 to 15 microns (one micron is a millionth of a metre), though could range from 1 to 100 microns.
Such small droplets fall very slowly and are kept up by just a slight updraft.
This updraft is partly formed by the rising water vapour and partly from what are commonly called thermals.

So no-one claims that "the water particles are too small to actually be affected by gravity". They are affected by gravity, just as everything else is, but are lifted by an equal or greater force from the updrafts of water vapour and air.

Typical raindrops range from 0.5 to 3 mm (or 500 to 3000 microns) - far larger than the droplets in clouds, mists and fogs.

There are many laws regarding a lot of the explanations going on in the universe, a lot of them are based on empirical science. I am one to simply state that if we can't observe or test it, it is not science. ( I.E BIg bang and Evolution.)

So what? The "Heliocentric Solar System" in no way depends in either the "big bang" or on "evolution".

I can science that, you are using a lot of math for your arguments. But is any of these mathematical equations testable in the sense that we can create a scenario where the centrifugal force is strong enough to remove something from the earths surface?

What's the big problem? The radius of the earth has been know quite accurately for over 1000 years, the angular velocity of the earth has been known for 400 to 500 years.
All that is needed is a few simple well-proven equations of motion to find the "centrifugal pseudo-force" - you can do the sums. Then the value of the local "gravity" g = 9.81 m/s² has been long for centuries.

ITs simply not testable. IT can be observed but not tested. It is only possible to test with math. "Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality."

But the "Heliocentric Solar System" was developed around 400 years ago - it's nothing new.
You flat earthers are "the new kids" on the block. Almost all of the old flat earth models were quite different from this modern one and they "worked" a lot better, but . . . .

Just as a random point, the heliocentric model and the big bang are not compatible.

I'm waiting for your explanation of why "the heliocentric model and the big bang are not compatible" especially as you seem to have no understanding of the heliocentric model.

I can science that, you are correct, however the force called "gravity" or simply put the attraction of mass toward the center of the earth is subjective at best, since it is the only theory where the force is a known law. If the force of gravity pulls down everything, a force must push it against so What force is exactly equal to clouds? Clouds are extremely heavy, yet defy gravity.

Clouds do not defy gravity and the is another force from the updrafts of air. Why do you ignore all answers about clouds?

And on gravitation, mass attracting mass has been measured and directly demonstrated many dozens of times, you might read the following:
Sorry about the last thread, here's a new theory as to why the earth is not flat « Reply #12 on: February 11, 2018, 11:54:05 AM »