# Water and spinning ball

• 126 Replies
• 4934 Views
?

#### Ozymandias74

• 47
##### Water and spinning ball
« on: June 12, 2019, 07:48:33 AM »
I have seen the claim several times that if the earth were spinning 1000mph, then the oceans/water would just spin off the earth.  A video of a wet ball spinning very fast is shown and water is flying off the ball in all directions.
Here is something to consider, try the experiment with a different but equal scale.
The earth spins 1000 mph, yes.   But in the case of the earth, it completes a full rotation every 24 hours.
So with that in mind, wet a ball and instead of spinning it very fast with an absolute speed, i.e. 'spinning 1000 mph', spin the ball with the equivalent speed that would equate to a rotation speed of one rotation per 24 hours
as a reference, for a basketball that is about 30 inches in diameter, it would spin about 1.25 inches per hour, which equates to a speed of .0000197 miles per hour
Does the water 'fly off in all directions' if you spin a basketball at this speed

#### wise

• Professor
• Flat Earth Scientist
• 20082
• To Us Everywhere Flat Earth
##### Re: Water and spinning ball
« Reply #1 on: June 12, 2019, 12:51:19 PM »
The earth moves with 1670 km/h. There is a layer of gigantic atmosphere on it as the world moves. half of this layer is in front of the earth in the same direction as the speed of the earth and the other half is in the back. Let's assume that gravity is enough to attract the atmosphere left behind. Why let the atmosphere layer in front of the world prevent us from staying in space, arrive the gap in space before the earth arrive there and let us breathe. Does the atmosphere go ahead, feeling where the world is going?

Does the world push the atmosphere to go in front of the world? Or, Is the atmosphere smarter than mankind, magically calculating the earth's route and magically going there before earth arrive?

IT IS DAY. LYNCHING IS ENABLE

?

#### JackBlack

• 12124
##### Re: Water and spinning ball
« Reply #2 on: June 12, 2019, 01:58:37 PM »
Let's assume that gravity is enough to attract the atmosphere left behind.
Firstly, this has nothing to do with the topic. It doesn't even focus on the rotation of Earth and instead focuses on its orbit around the sun.
It doesn't need to be.
The atmosphere is moving with us.
It doesn't need to be pushed or pulled along by Earth. Earth just needs to hold it to itself.
It's own momentum will keep it moving and gravity (of the sun) will keep it in its orbit.
It doesn't need any intelligence to do so. It follows the same physical laws as Earth.

If Earth magically vanished, the gas left behind would continue along its path around the sun and spread out.
If Earth magically stopped (without the atmosphere stopping), then we would get winds of 30 km/s at the sunset side directed straight down, at midday and midnight flowing across the surface, and at sunrise going away from the surface.

#### wise

• Professor
• Flat Earth Scientist
• 20082
• To Us Everywhere Flat Earth
##### Re: Water and spinning ball
« Reply #3 on: June 12, 2019, 03:13:35 PM »
Firstly, this has nothing to do with the topic.
If this nothing with the topic so why do you reply it, are you likely to talk off the topic? It was even not relevant with you. You have jumped anything not talked to you but you claim its being off the topic. Again,  are you likely to talk off the topic?

The atmosphere is moving with us.
Prove it theorically, why?

It doesn't need to be pushed or pulled along by Earth. Earth just needs to hold it to itself.
Earth is moving so it has to move too. Its like the smoke of the train leading the train. why would it go forward?

It's own momentum will keep it moving and gravity (of the sun) will keep it in its orbit.
Prove its momentum as strong as cause it moves with 1670 kmh, beyond the earth.

It doesn't need any intelligence to do so. It follows the same physical laws as Earth.
same physical laws requres its following the earth, not going ahead the earth.
If Earth magically vanished, the gas left behind would continue along its path around the sun and spread out.
Magic is your job as how your smoke of the earth moves before earth.
If Earth magically stopped (without the atmosphere stopping), then we would get winds of 30 km/s at the sunset side directed straight down, at midday and midnight flowing across the surface, and at sunrise going away from the surface.
This is your own fantesy can not magically prove anything.

IT IS DAY. LYNCHING IS ENABLE

?

#### JackBlack

• 12124
##### Re: Water and spinning ball
« Reply #4 on: June 12, 2019, 03:33:04 PM »
If this nothing with the topic so why do you reply it
Fine, I won't deal with your off topic garbage.

The topic of this thread is about people claiming water flying off a spinning ball proves the Earth can't rotate.
But they are spinning the ball way to fast.

But spinning the ball at one revolution per 24 hours only applies if you are trying to have the balls own gravity hold the water there, and that only works if the ball has the same density as Earth.

Now discuss the issue of the thread, not irrelevant garbage of the atmosphere and the orbit of Earth around the sun.

#### rabinoz

• 24304
• Real Earth Believer
##### Re: Water and spinning ball
« Reply #5 on: June 13, 2019, 04:37:50 AM »
The earth moves with 1670 km/h. There is a layer of gigantic atmosphere on it as the world moves.
I have seen the claim several times that if the earth were spinning 1000mph, then the oceans/water would just spin off the earth.  A video of a wet ball spinning very fast is shown and water is flying off the ball in all directions.
Here is something to consider, try the experiment with a different but equal scale.
The earth spins 1000 mph, yes.   But in the case of the earth, it completes a full rotation every 24 hours.
So with that in mind, wet a ball and instead of spinning it very fast with an absolute speed, i.e. 'spinning 1000 mph', spin the ball with the equivalent speed that would equate to a rotation speed of one rotation per 24 hours
as a reference, for a basketball that is about 30 inches in diameter, it would spin about 1.25 inches per hour, which equates to a speed of .0000197 miles per hour
Does the water 'fly off in all directions' if you spin a basketball at this speed
It is entirely about whether "the oceans/water would just spin off the earth" or not. Your "layer of gigantic atmosphere on it" is quite irrelevant.

#### wise

• Professor
• Flat Earth Scientist
• 20082
• To Us Everywhere Flat Earth
##### Re: Water and spinning ball
« Reply #6 on: June 13, 2019, 06:44:48 AM »
If this nothing with the topic so why do you reply it
water flying off a spinning ball proves the Earth can't rotate.

Now discuss the issue of the thread, not irrelevant garbage of the atmosphere and the orbit of Earth around the sun.

Since we have agreed flying off a spinning ball proves the Earth can't rotate, so we can return to the main issue. What difference of being spinning water and spinning air causes.

IT IS DAY. LYNCHING IS ENABLE

#### wise

• Professor
• Flat Earth Scientist
• 20082
• To Us Everywhere Flat Earth
##### Re: Water and spinning ball
« Reply #7 on: June 13, 2019, 06:47:42 AM »
The earth moves with 1670 km/h. There is a layer of gigantic atmosphere on it as the world moves.
I have seen the claim several times that if the earth were spinning 1000mph, then the oceans/water would just spin off the earth.  A video of a wet ball spinning very fast is shown and water is flying off the ball in all directions.
Here is something to consider, try the experiment with a different but equal scale.
The earth spins 1000 mph, yes.   But in the case of the earth, it completes a full rotation every 24 hours.
So with that in mind, wet a ball and instead of spinning it very fast with an absolute speed, i.e. 'spinning 1000 mph', spin the ball with the equivalent speed that would equate to a rotation speed of one rotation per 24 hours
as a reference, for a basketball that is about 30 inches in diameter, it would spin about 1.25 inches per hour, which equates to a speed of .0000197 miles per hour
Does the water 'fly off in all directions' if you spin a basketball at this speed
It is entirely about whether "the oceans/water would just spin off the earth" or not. Your "layer of gigantic atmosphere on it" is quite irrelevant.

air and water are independent masses on the earth that are not integrated with the physical mass of the world but move with it. The main difference of water and air is that it is heavier and more intense. heavy air can behave like water, and when water evaporates, it can rise in the air and get into the air. they are in the same category as the comparison their motion with earth's motino. Your claim their being irrevelant doesn't magically make irrevelant.

IT IS DAY. LYNCHING IS ENABLE

?

#### turtles

• 697
##### Re: Water and spinning ball
« Reply #8 on: June 13, 2019, 09:04:23 AM »
The earth moves with 1670 km/h. There is a layer of gigantic atmosphere on it as the world moves.
I have seen the claim several times that if the earth were spinning 1000mph, then the oceans/water would just spin off the earth.  A video of a wet ball spinning very fast is shown and water is flying off the ball in all directions.
Here is something to consider, try the experiment with a different but equal scale.
The earth spins 1000 mph, yes.   But in the case of the earth, it completes a full rotation every 24 hours.
So with that in mind, wet a ball and instead of spinning it very fast with an absolute speed, i.e. 'spinning 1000 mph', spin the ball with the equivalent speed that would equate to a rotation speed of one rotation per 24 hours
as a reference, for a basketball that is about 30 inches in diameter, it would spin about 1.25 inches per hour, which equates to a speed of .0000197 miles per hour
Does the water 'fly off in all directions' if you spin a basketball at this speed
It is entirely about whether "the oceans/water would just spin off the earth" or not. Your "layer of gigantic atmosphere on it" is quite irrelevant.

air and water are independent masses on the earth that are not integrated with the physical mass of the world but move with it. The main difference of water and air is that it is heavier and more intense. heavy air can behave like water, and when water evaporates, it can rise in the air and get into the air. they are in the same category as the comparison their motion with earth's motino. Your claim their being irrevelant doesn't magically make irrevelant.

Why are they independent? Is it just air and water or are other liquids and gases independent? Why not other substances, why doesn't the dirt and trees and birds follow the same rules as your magic air and magic water?
The Universal Accelerator is a constant farce.

Flattery will get you nowhere.

From the FAQ - "In general, we at the Flat Earth Society do not lend much credibility to photographic evidence."

#### Macarios

• 1881
##### Re: Water and spinning ball
« Reply #9 on: June 13, 2019, 10:41:20 AM »
Since we have agreed flying off a spinning ball proves the Earth can't rotate, so we can...

Get a smooth ball 200 millimeters in diameter, stain it with 0.06millimeters of water.
Now spin it at some normal speed, say once per second. (No need to spin it as slow as once per 24 hours.)

Will the water fall off?

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.

#### rabinoz

• 24304
• Real Earth Believer
##### Re: Water and spinning ball
« Reply #10 on: June 13, 2019, 02:44:54 PM »
Now discuss the issue of the thread, not irrelevant garbage of the atmosphere and the orbit of Earth around the sun.

Since we have agreed flying off a spinning ball proves the Earth can't rotate, so we can return to the main issue. What difference of being spinning water and spinning air causes.
Nobody has "agreed flying off a spinning ball proves the Earth can't rotate" now try to answer the OP sensibly!

The earth rotates very slowly at about 0.000073 radians./second. Any scientist knows that centripetal acceleration = (angular velocity)2 x radius = 0.0000732/6731000 = 0.036 m/s2.

This reduces the force on one kilogram by only 0.036 Newtons or about 3.6 grams - almost negligible.

Hence the rotation of the earth has an almost negligible effect on the oceans or on the atmosphere if it comes to that.

#### wise

• Professor
• Flat Earth Scientist
• 20082
• To Us Everywhere Flat Earth
##### Re: Water and spinning ball
« Reply #11 on: June 13, 2019, 02:49:49 PM »
Now discuss the issue of the thread, not irrelevant garbage of the atmosphere and the orbit of Earth around the sun.

Since we have agreed flying off a spinning ball proves the Earth can't rotate, so we can return to the main issue. What difference of being spinning water and spinning air causes.
Nobody has "agreed flying off a spinning ball proves the Earth can't rotate" now try to answer the OP sensibly!

The earth rotates very slowly at about 0.000073 radians./second. Any scientist knows that centripetal acceleration = (angular velocity)2 x radius = 0.0000732/6731000 = 0.036 m/s2.

This reduces the force on one kilogram by only 0.036 Newtons or about 3.6 grams - almost negligible.

Hence the rotation of the earth has an almost negligible effect on the oceans or on the atmosphere if it comes to that.

It is not negligible mister! Stop to say lie!

It means that when the water flowing from the tap falls from 30 centimeters, it falls as much as 1 centimeter forward. you should take care even when pouring tea into your glass because of this force.

0.036 m/s2[/b] means 3,6 cm/s2 . Is it negligible? Definitely it isn'T.

Hence get agree the earth is stationary.

IT IS DAY. LYNCHING IS ENABLE

?

#### JackBlack

• 12124
##### Re: Water and spinning ball
« Reply #12 on: June 13, 2019, 03:04:37 PM »
Since we have agreed flying off a spinning ball proves the Earth can't rotate, so we can return to the main issue.
Stop lying, we have not agreed to that at all.
That is the baseless assertion put forward by flat Earthers or other geocentrists.
The main issue is that that is a load of garbage.

It has been explained why that is a load of garbage and you have shown know problems with this explanation.

Again:
People love appealing to the linear velocity, but spinning a tiny ball at that velocity and a large ball at that velocity produce vastly different forces, making the comparison meaningless.
If you want to see if the ball's gravity can hold it you need to spin a ball with the same density as Earth at the same angular velocity.

Here is why:
For gravity at the surface of roughly spherical object of mass M and radius r, we can find the acceleration a=G M/r2.
Where M=ρ V=(4/3) π ρ r3.
Thus we can rewrite the acceleration due to gravity as a=(4/3) π G ρ r3/r2=(4/3) π G ρ r.
Notice that this is linearly dependent upon r. That means as you increase the size of the roughly spherical object, assuming you keep the density the same, the acceleration due to gravity at the surface will increase proportionally with the radius. Double the radius, double the acceleration due to gravity.

Now, in order to prevent the water flying off, the acceleration due to gravity needs to be greater than the acceleration required to maintain a circular path.
For a path of radius r, with an angular velocity of ω, we have a=ω2 r.
So again, we see that this is linearly proportional to r. If you double the radius, you double the acceleration required.

This means that the angular velocity is the natural way to compare. We can even find the limiting condition where the water would just stick and above this angular velocity water wouldn't stick (assuming gravity is the only force holding it there rather than surface tension or cohesion). This is when the 2 accelerations are equal, i.e.:
(4/3) π G ρ r=ω2 r
and thus:
(4/3) π G ρ=ω2
or:
ω=sqrt((4/3) π G ρ)

For an object like Earth, with an average density of 5515.3 kg/m3, this works out to be an angular velocity of 0.0012 s-1.
This can also be expressed as a period of 5060 s or 84 min, or in rpm as 0.71 rpm.

This is much slower than typically done, but much much faster (roughly 20 x) than the rotational speed of Earth.

Using velocity does not work like this, and such doing is extremely dishonest or irrational, or both.
If we use velocity we end up with a=v2/r, with it now being inversely proportional to r. Doubling the radius would half the acceleration.
Again, if we find the limiting case we end up with:
(4/3) π G ρ r=v2/r
and thus to find v we end up with:
v=sqrt((4/3) π G ρ) r
with the velocity now dependent upon r.

Now if we do this for Earth, with a radius of roughly 6 371 000 m, we end up with a velocity of ~7900 m/s or roughly 28 500 km/hr, again, roughly 20x the speed Earth rotates at.
So Earth is clearly rotating no where near fast enough to have all the water fly off.
If instead we rotate a small ball, say a 30 cm wide basketball (which has a density much less than that of Earth), we have r=0.15 m, you end up with the velocity needed to throw it off being a mere 0.19 mm/s, which is much slower than people rotate it in their demonstrations.
More importantly, the velocity required to compare it directly to Earth is such that the ratio of the 2 are the same.
As we have shown that this velocity is linearly proportional to radius, we just need to use that same proportion with the velocity.
So instead of the very large Earth spinning at 1600 km/hr, we have the tiny ball spinning at 0.01 mm/s.
This is much slower than the experiments show.

But don't worry, there can be a partial saving grace.
If you instead spin the ball such that the axis of rotation is horizontal, and just try to demonstrate that the water doesn't fly off the top as it is held down by Earth's gravity, you can go much faster. However now note that you also have Earth's rotation to deal with which does technically make it a bit more complicated.
Now we are comparing the acceleration due to Earth with the acceleration due to rotation.
So now, we can directly compare the acceleration due to the rotation of Earth with the acceleration due to the object.
Remember, using angular velocity, this is linearly proportional to radius, however it is the angular velocity squared.
So the keep the acceleration the same, the angular velocity squared is inversely proportional to r.
So multiplying the radius by 4 cuts the angular velocity in half.
This means the limiting angular velocity would be ~8/s, corresponding to a period of ~0.7 s, and 77 rpm. But that is still much slower than people spin the balls. To compare it to Earth however you would need an angular velocity of 0.47/s, so a period of 13 seconds or 4.5 rpm.

So these experiments with spinning quite rapidly do not show any problem with the real rotating Earth as they are spinning much to fast and anyone who is just appealing to the linear velocity either has no idea what they are talking about or is intentionally being dishonest by misrepresenting Earth.

It means that when the water flowing from the tap falls from 30 centimeters, it falls as much as 1 centimeter forward.
No, it doesn't.
I means that at the equator, where you actually experience that, instead of the water accelerating downwards at a rate of 9.8ish m/s, it instead falls at 9.8ish-0.036 m/s.
That 0.036 is insignificant compared to the 9.8. You aren't going to notice it, especially as if you haven't travelled you would have gotten used to it. Again, it varies by more than this across the surface of Earth.

At other locations, the acceleration due to rotation is smaller and isn't aligned with gravity so you have the effect of the location direction of gravity being skewed, resulting in Earth being an oblate spheroid instead of a perfect sphere.
This also results in variations in the value of g around Earth, which has been measured, and can be done so by simply measuring the period of a pendulum in various locations.

The amount things will drift is tiny and is summed up by the Coriolis effect, and that is also observed, by typically requires very large scales to do so.

As a first order approximation, lets say you are pouring water from a tap or teapot into something 0.1 m below, and again, we will be at the equator to make it most significant.
Now the Earth is moving at a velocity of 464 m/s. Meanwhile, the additional height of the tap/pot means it is travelling at a staggering 464 m/s, or roughly 7 μm/s faster.
Now, the water/tea falls at a rate of 9.8 m/s2, so it takes a total of 0.14 seconds to fall.
That means that the water/tea moves a staggering 1 μm forwards in the time taken to fall into the cup.

YOU WILL NOT NOTICE THAT!

If you wish to observe the effect of this moving forwards, set up a Foucault's pendulum. Note the plane it starts to swing in and then note how this plane moves.

#### wise

• Professor
• Flat Earth Scientist
• 20082
• To Us Everywhere Flat Earth
##### Re: Water and spinning ball
« Reply #13 on: June 13, 2019, 03:09:57 PM »
Since we have agreed flying off a spinning ball proves the Earth can't rotate, so we can return to the main issue.
Stop lying, we have not agreed to that at all.
That is the baseless assertion put forward by flat Earthers or other geocentrists.
The main issue is that that is a load of garbage.

It has been explained why that is a load of garbage and you have shown know problems with this explanation.

Again:
People love appealing to the linear velocity, but spinning a tiny ball at that velocity and a large ball at that velocity produce vastly different forces, making the comparison meaningless.
If you want to see if the ball's gravity can hold it you need to spin a ball with the same density as Earth at the same angular velocity.

Here is why:
For gravity at the surface of roughly spherical object of mass M and radius r, we can find the acceleration a=G M/r2.
Where M=ρ V=(4/3) π ρ r3.
Thus we can rewrite the acceleration due to gravity as a=(4/3) π G ρ r3/r2=(4/3) π G ρ r.
Notice that this is linearly dependent upon r. That means as you increase the size of the roughly spherical object, assuming you keep the density the same, the acceleration due to gravity at the surface will increase proportionally with the radius. Double the radius, double the acceleration due to gravity.

Now, in order to prevent the water flying off, the acceleration due to gravity needs to be greater than the acceleration required to maintain a circular path.
For a path of radius r, with an angular velocity of ω, we have a=ω2 r.
So again, we see that this is linearly proportional to r. If you double the radius, you double the acceleration required.

This means that the angular velocity is the natural way to compare. We can even find the limiting condition where the water would just stick and above this angular velocity water wouldn't stick (assuming gravity is the only force holding it there rather than surface tension or cohesion). This is when the 2 accelerations are equal, i.e.:
(4/3) π G ρ r=ω2 r
and thus:
(4/3) π G ρ=ω2
or:
ω=sqrt((4/3) π G ρ)

For an object like Earth, with an average density of 5515.3 kg/m3, this works out to be an angular velocity of 0.0012 s-1.
This can also be expressed as a period of 5060 s or 84 min, or in rpm as 0.71 rpm.

This is much slower than typically done, but much much faster (roughly 20 x) than the rotational speed of Earth.

Using velocity does not work like this, and such doing is extremely dishonest or irrational, or both.
If we use velocity we end up with a=v2/r, with it now being inversely proportional to r. Doubling the radius would half the acceleration.
Again, if we find the limiting case we end up with:
(4/3) π G ρ r=v2/r
and thus to find v we end up with:
v=sqrt((4/3) π G ρ) r
with the velocity now dependent upon r.

Now if we do this for Earth, with a radius of roughly 6 371 000 m, we end up with a velocity of ~7900 m/s or roughly 28 500 km/hr, again, roughly 20x the speed Earth rotates at.
So Earth is clearly rotating no where near fast enough to have all the water fly off.
If instead we rotate a small ball, say a 30 cm wide basketball (which has a density much less than that of Earth), we have r=0.15 m, you end up with the velocity needed to throw it off being a mere 0.19 mm/s, which is much slower than people rotate it in their demonstrations.
More importantly, the velocity required to compare it directly to Earth is such that the ratio of the 2 are the same.
As we have shown that this velocity is linearly proportional to radius, we just need to use that same proportion with the velocity.
So instead of the very large Earth spinning at 1600 km/hr, we have the tiny ball spinning at 0.01 mm/s.
This is much slower than the experiments show.

But don't worry, there can be a partial saving grace.
If you instead spin the ball such that the axis of rotation is horizontal, and just try to demonstrate that the water doesn't fly off the top as it is held down by Earth's gravity, you can go much faster. However now note that you also have Earth's rotation to deal with which does technically make it a bit more complicated.
Now we are comparing the acceleration due to Earth with the acceleration due to rotation.
So now, we can directly compare the acceleration due to the rotation of Earth with the acceleration due to the object.
Remember, using angular velocity, this is linearly proportional to radius, however it is the angular velocity squared.
So the keep the acceleration the same, the angular velocity squared is inversely proportional to r.
So multiplying the radius by 4 cuts the angular velocity in half.
This means the limiting angular velocity would be ~8/s, corresponding to a period of ~0.7 s, and 77 rpm. But that is still much slower than people spin the balls. To compare it to Earth however you would need an angular velocity of 0.47/s, so a period of 13 seconds or 4.5 rpm.

So these experiments with spinning quite rapidly do not show any problem with the real rotating Earth as they are spinning much to fast and anyone who is just appealing to the linear velocity either has no idea what they are talking about or is intentionally being dishonest by misrepresenting Earth.

It means that when the water flowing from the tap falls from 30 centimeters, it falls as much as 1 centimeter forward.
No, it doesn't.
I means that at the equator, where you actually experience that, instead of the water accelerating downwards at a rate of 9.8ish m/s, it instead falls at 9.8ish-0.036 m/s.
That 0.036 is insignificant compared to the 9.8. You aren't going to notice it, especially as if you haven't travelled you would have gotten used to it. Again, it varies by more than this across the surface of Earth.

At other locations, the acceleration due to rotation is smaller and isn't aligned with gravity so you have the effect of the location direction of gravity being skewed, resulting in Earth being an oblate spheroid instead of a perfect sphere.
This also results in variations in the value of g around Earth, which has been measured, and can be done so by simply measuring the period of a pendulum in various locations.

The amount things will drift is tiny and is summed up by the Coriolis effect, and that is also observed, by typically requires very large scales to do so.

As a first order approximation, lets say you are pouring water from a tap or teapot into something 0.1 m below, and again, we will be at the equator to make it most significant.
Now the Earth is moving at a velocity of 464 m/s. Meanwhile, the additional height of the tap/pot means it is travelling at a staggering 464 m/s, or roughly 7 μm/s faster.
Now, the water/tea falls at a rate of 9.8 m/s2, so it takes a total of 0.14 seconds to fall.
That means that the water/tea moves a staggering 1 μm forwards in the time taken to fall into the cup.

YOU WILL NOT NOTICE THAT!

If you wish to observe the effect of this moving forwards, set up a Foucault's pendulum. Note the plane it starts to swing in and then note how this plane moves.

Debunked by rabinoz:

Now discuss the issue of the thread, not irrelevant garbage of the atmosphere and the orbit of Earth around the sun.

Since we have agreed flying off a spinning ball proves the Earth can't rotate, so we can return to the main issue. What difference of being spinning water and spinning air causes.
Nobody has "agreed flying off a spinning ball proves the Earth can't rotate" now try to answer the OP sensibly!

The earth rotates very slowly at about 0.000073 radians./second. Any scientist knows that centripetal acceleration = (angular velocity)2 x radius = 0.0000732/6731000 = 0.036 m/s2.

This reduces the force on one kilogram by only 0.036 Newtons or about 3.6 grams - almost negligible.

Hence the rotation of the earth has an almost negligible effect on the oceans or on the atmosphere if it comes to that.

As we see that the centripetal acceleration = (angular velocity)2 x radius = 0.0000732/6731000 = 0.036 m/s2 and this is important.

Please show your workings to rabinoz before publish them here. Because he is, but not you are boss here.

IT IS DAY. LYNCHING IS ENABLE

?

#### JackBlack

• 12124
##### Re: Water and spinning ball
« Reply #14 on: June 13, 2019, 03:32:16 PM »
Debunked by rabinoz:
No, agreed with by rab.
We are both saying the force is insignificant. You are lying and saying that it isn't.
Now, can you actually refute any of it, or are you only capable of denial?

Perhaps you can surprise us all by admitting that there was nothing with my argument and thus you were wrong and that you wouldn't expect all the water of Earth to fly off it due to the rotation of Earth?

#### rabinoz

• 24304
• Real Earth Believer
##### Re: Water and spinning ball
« Reply #15 on: June 13, 2019, 03:45:29 PM »
Since we have agreed flying off a spinning ball proves the Earth can't rotate, so we can return to the main issue.
Stop lying, we have not agreed to that at all.
That is the baseless assertion put forward by flat Earthers or other geocentrists.
The main issue is that that is a load of garbage.

It has been explained why that is a load of garbage and you have shown know problems with this explanation.

<< So JackBlack'ds post for details >>
The amount things will drift is tiny and is summed up by the Coriolis effect, and that is also observed, by typically requires very large scales to do so.

As a first order approximation, lets say you are pouring water from a tap or teapot into something 0.1 m below, and again, we will be at the equator to make it most significant.
Now the Earth is moving at a velocity of 464 m/s. Meanwhile, the additional height of the tap/pot means it is travelling at a staggering 464 m/s, or roughly 7 μm/s faster.
Now, the water/tea falls at a rate of 9.8 m/s2, so it takes a total of 0.14 seconds to fall.
That means that the water/tea moves a staggering 1 μm forwards in the time taken to fall into the cup.

YOU WILL NOT NOTICE THAT!

If you wish to observe the effect of this moving forwards, set up a Foucault's pendulum. Note the plane it starts to swing in and then note how this plane moves.
Debunked by rabinoz:
Totally untrue! Proving that you do not have the slightest idea what you are talking about!

Now discuss the issue of the thread, not irrelevant garbage of the atmosphere and the orbit of Earth around the sun.

Since we have agreed flying off a spinning ball proves the Earth can't rotate, so we can return to the main issue. What difference of being spinning water and spinning air causes.
Nobody has "agreed flying off a spinning ball proves the Earth can't rotate" now try to answer the OP sensibly!

The earth rotates very slowly at about 0.000073 radians./second. Any scientist knows that centripetal acceleration = (angular velocity)2 x radius = 0.0000732/6731000 = 0.036 m/s2.

This reduces the force on one kilogram by only 0.036 Newtons or about 3.6 grams - almost negligible.

Hence the rotation of the earth has an almost negligible effect on the oceans or on the atmosphere if it comes to that.
Quote from: wise

As we see that the centripetal acceleration = (angular velocity)2 x radius = 0.0000732/6731000 = 0.036 m/s2 and this is important.

Please show your workings to rabinoz before publish them here. Because he is, but not you are boss here.

Yes, THIS is important "the rotation of the earth has an almost negligible effect on the oceans or on the atmosphere if it comes to that."!

But JackBlack is a scientist and knows more about maths etc than I do and all you are doing is proving more and more with every post that YOU are no scientist an that you have no idea about physics or any other parts of science!

#### wise

• Professor
• Flat Earth Scientist
• 20082
• To Us Everywhere Flat Earth
##### Re: Water and spinning ball
« Reply #16 on: June 13, 2019, 11:45:30 PM »
But JackBlack is a scientist and knows more about maths etc than I do and all you are doing is proving more and more with every post that YOU are no scientist an that you have no idea about physics or any other parts of science!

Totally lie! I have asked his education and he can not gave a name of univercity. It seems he is last educated in a lycee or low. So, stop to BS claims. If you claim him being a scientist you have to prove it by certificate, your claiming him being a scientist does not make him magically a scientist! I don't accept your certification systems but even so it is an argument that you have to put forward it, it makes a balance me denying your arguments but you insist to claim them, other than your baseless talkings.

IT IS DAY. LYNCHING IS ENABLE

#### wise

• Professor
• Flat Earth Scientist
• 20082
• To Us Everywhere Flat Earth
##### Re: Water and spinning ball
« Reply #17 on: June 13, 2019, 11:55:48 PM »
Debunked by rabinoz:
No, agreed with by rab.
We are both saying the force is insignificant. You are lying and saying that it isn't.
Now, can you actually refute any of it, or are you only capable of denial?

Perhaps you can surprise us all by admitting that there was nothing with my argument and thus you were wrong and that you wouldn't expect all the water of Earth to fly off it due to the rotation of Earth?

No. rabblack has calculated the acceleration as follow:

The earth rotates very slowly at about 0.000073 radians./second. Any scientist knows that centripetal acceleration = (angular velocity)2 x radius = 0.0000732/6731000 = 0.036 m/s2.

I've calculated it earlier with about like this. 0,036 m ie 3,6 centimetres/s^2. This is not unimportant. Oppositely, this is important. It means you can not fill a glass with water without overflow out. But we are generally filling the glass with water perfectly if we carefully do it.

The acceleration due to rotation has been posted before. It like 0.0001 m/s2. You can’t detect it.
You already agreed you can’t feel velocity.

This is sokarul's, he claims 0.0001 m/s2 ie 0,1 centimetres/s^2.

Oh, okay, you've not disproved anything, but you both has debunked the sokarul, okay?

Can you accept sokarul made a mistake here, with baseless argument?

IT IS DAY. LYNCHING IS ENABLE

#### rabinoz

• 24304
• Real Earth Believer
##### Re: Water and spinning ball
« Reply #18 on: June 14, 2019, 12:33:21 AM »
This is sokarul's, he claims 0.0001 m/s2 ie 0,1 centimetres/s^2.

Oh, okay, you've not disproved anything, but you both has debunked the sokarul, okay?
I've verified that the rotation of the earth will not cause "the oceans/water" to "just spin off the earth."
That was the question asked in the OP and it seems that you agree with my answer so what is your problem.

If you disagree with sokarul take that up with him not me!

But, I'm afraid, you totally screwed up with this post:
Now discuss the issue of the thread, not irrelevant garbage of the atmosphere and the orbit of Earth around the sun.

Since we have agreed flying off a spinning ball proves the Earth can't rotate, so we can return to the main issue. What difference of being spinning water and spinning air causes.
Nobody has "agreed flying off a spinning ball proves the Earth can't rotate" now try to answer the OP sensibly!

The earth rotates very slowly at about 0.000073 radians./second. Any scientist knows that centripetal acceleration = (angular velocity)2 x radius = 0.0000732/6731000 = 0.036 m/s2.

This reduces the force on one kilogram by only 0.036 Newtons or about 3.6 grams - almost negligible.

Hence the rotation of the earth has an almost negligible effect on the oceans or on the atmosphere if it comes to that.

It is not negligible mister! Stop to say lie!

It means that when the water flowing from the tap falls from 30 centimeters, it falls as much as 1 centimeter forward. you should take care even when pouring tea into your glass because of this force.
NO!  It has no such effect! On the equator the only effect is to reduce the effective value g slightly.
That has been measured at 9.79828 m/s2 at the equator and 9.86431 m/s.
Between the equator and the poles it affects the direction slightly but that direction is what a plumb-bob shows anyway so there is no way to sense it.

Quote from: wise
0.036 m/s2[/b] means 3,6 cm/s2 . Is it negligible? Definitely it isn'T.

Hence get agree the earth is stationary.
Whether you agree or not all the "[/b]0.036 m/s2[/b]" does is to very slightly affect g.

So sorry about splitting your post but if expect the slightest respect from me when you say I "say lie" you are very much mistaken.
Stop you insults and saying I'm lying to you and I might reconsider.

#### wise

• Professor
• Flat Earth Scientist
• 20082
• To Us Everywhere Flat Earth
##### Re: Water and spinning ball
« Reply #19 on: June 14, 2019, 01:22:58 AM »
This is sokarul's, he claims 0.0001 m/s2 ie 0,1 centimetres/s^2.

Oh, okay, you've not disproved anything, but you both has debunked the sokarul, okay?
I've verified that the rotation of the earth will not cause "the oceans/water" to "just spin off the earth."

Your verification by yourself does not magically the oceans water stay without spin around the earth.

IT IS DAY. LYNCHING IS ENABLE

?

#### JackBlack

• 12124
##### Re: Water and spinning ball
« Reply #20 on: June 14, 2019, 01:39:21 AM »
Totally lie! I have asked his education and he can not gave a name of univercity.
No, I can, I just chose not to, as it doesn't matter.
If you need to appeal to credentials (or lack thereof) you have no argument.

I don't accept your certification systems but even so it is an argument
Then why bother asking for it?

No. rabblack has calculated the acceleration as follow:
0.036 m/s2
So?
It is insignificant, which agrees with me.
Sure, he made a mistake and accidentally put the radius of Earth as 6731 km instead of 6371 km for the average or the 6378.1 km for the equator, but the point remains the same, it is insignificant.

Oppositely, this is important. It means you can not fill a glass with water without overflow out.
WHY?
Just why should this make it flow out? You love asserting that but provided no basis for such a claim.
I have already shown that your claim of it magically landing in front of the cup is nonsense as the change, even when pouring from 10 cm amounts to roughly 1 micrometer.
It isn't going to be an issue.The only way you would see it is with sensitive instruments, which do detect it.
Can you accept sokarul made a mistake here
Yes, just like I can accept Rab did.
Sokarul either remembered wrong or just exaggerated.
But saying other people have a different number, especially when we are all in agreement that it is insignificant, doesn't help your case.

I have shown plenty of times that this acceleration is insignificant and you wont feel it.
But the important point of this thread is that the demonstrations with the spinning are horrible dishonest/inaccurate.

If you wanted to try and demonstrate that Earth's gravity was not enough to hold water to a spinning ball, using a basketball with a diameter of 30 cm, spinning about a horizontal axis and ignoring the rotation of Earth itself, you would need to spin it at a rate of roughly 5 rpm. For a tennis ball it would be roughly 10 rpm.
But people doing this highly dishonest experiment spin it as fast as they can to pretend the spinning would cause the water to fly off.

Simple math shows that Earth would need to rotate with a period of roughly 84 minutes to have the water be weightless and even less to have it fly off.
That is a velocity of roughly 8 km/second or 28 km/hr.
This corresponds quite well to low altitude satellites, such as the ISS at 400 km altitude with a period of roughly 90 minutes (higher as expected due to gravity being weaker further from Earth and being further out) and a velocity of roughly 7.7 km/s.

So the behaviour of water on a spinning ball provides absolutely no justification to think Earth is flat.

Now care to actually address this, even if it is just simple agreement?

Edit: Fixed horribly broken formatting.
« Last Edit: June 14, 2019, 01:44:04 AM by JackBlack »

#### rabinoz

• 24304
• Real Earth Believer
##### Re: Water and spinning ball
« Reply #21 on: June 14, 2019, 04:12:55 AM »
I've verified that the rotation of the earth will not cause "the oceans/water" to "just spin off the earth."

Your verification by yourself does not magically the oceans water stay without spin around the earth.
Really? The acceleration due to gravity, g, averages 9.81 m/s2 and the centripetal acceleration was agreed to be 0.036 m/s2.
And it is simply gravity that holds the oceans and the atmosphere on the earth.

And no magic is involved. Gravitation (G)has been been measured an qualitatively demonstrated many hundreds of times.

Your refusal to believe well documented things like that is not my problem.

I know that you have to deny gravity because it totally destroys your version of the flat earth but that your problem, not mine.

#### wise

• Professor
• Flat Earth Scientist
• 20082
• To Us Everywhere Flat Earth
##### Re: Water and spinning ball
« Reply #22 on: June 14, 2019, 02:05:47 PM »
I've verified that the rotation of the earth will not cause "the oceans/water" to "just spin off the earth."

Your verification by yourself does not magically the oceans water stay without spin around the earth.
Really? The acceleration due to gravity, g, averages 9.81 m/s2 and the centripetal acceleration was agreed to be 0.036 m/s2.
And it is simply gravity that holds the oceans and the atmosphere on the earth.

And no magic is involved. Gravitation (G)has been been measured an qualitatively demonstrated many hundreds of times.

Your refusal to believe well documented things like that is not my problem.

I know that you have to deny gravity because it totally destroys your version of the flat earth but that your problem, not mine.

clearly this gravitational force is not enough to hold the outermost layer of the atmosphere. Anything what absent  can not destroy anything related to me.

IT IS DAY. LYNCHING IS ENABLE

?

#### JackBlack

• 12124
##### Re: Water and spinning ball
« Reply #23 on: June 14, 2019, 02:57:28 PM »
atmosphere.
We aren't discussing the atmosphere.
We are discussing water.
If you would like to try discussing something else, start by admitting that gravity can hold water to Earth, even while Earth is spinning.

If you don't want to admit that, then demonstrate that it cant.

#### rabinoz

• 24304
• Real Earth Believer
##### Re: Water and spinning ball
« Reply #24 on: June 14, 2019, 06:11:28 PM »
clearly this gravitational force is not enough to hold the outermost layer of the atmosphere. Anything what absent  can not destroy anything related to me.
The topic is "Water and spinning ball" not the atmosphere!

Nevertheless, you are quite wrong with your claim that "clearly this gravitational force is not enough to hold the outermost layer of the atmosphere".

Gravitation is quite sufficient to retain all but a minute fraction of the earth's atmosphere.
It is estimated that about 90 tonnes do escape per day but don't panic for 10s of billions of years !
If that 90 tonnes loss per day were maintained there would be none left in a bit over 150 billion years .

For air to escape the molecules would have to reach escape velocity but even at 9,000 km above the earth it is still over 7 km/s.
But the mean thermal velocity of air molecules, even at 2000°C is only about 1.3 km/s.
Hence only a very small fraction of the trace of atmosphere at that distance from earth would escape that way.
The solar wind would "blow" a little away but there is so little that distance from earth that it's quite negible.

So the "gravitational force is" quite sufficient "to hold the outermost layer of the atmosphere".
If you disagree, please show proof.

By the way, the atmosphere that distance from earth does not rotate with the earth because the molecules are sparse there is no "drag" to keep them moving.

#### wise

• Professor
• Flat Earth Scientist
• 20082
• To Us Everywhere Flat Earth
##### Re: Water and spinning ball
« Reply #25 on: June 16, 2019, 12:43:58 PM »
atmosphere.
We aren't discussing the atmosphere.
We are discussing water.
If you would like to try discussing something else, start by admitting that gravity can hold water to Earth, even while Earth is spinning.

If you don't want to admit that, then demonstrate that it cant.

I told that atmospher and water is equal compared earth's rotation; ground moves unified but water and atmosphere are independent structures on the earth. If you can't give up to childish claims so ask rabinoz how he does it.

clearly this gravitational force is not enough to hold the outermost layer of the atmosphere. Anything what absent  can not destroy anything related to me.
The topic is "Water and spinning ball" not the atmosphere!
Again, they have to behave similar. I answered it to Jackinoz. Your denying the facts by childish claims does not change the facts.

IT IS DAY. LYNCHING IS ENABLE

#### rabinoz

• 24304
• Real Earth Believer
##### Re: Water and spinning ball
« Reply #26 on: June 17, 2019, 05:10:20 AM »
atmosphere.
We aren't discussing the atmosphere.
We are discussing water.
If you would like to try discussing something else, start by admitting that gravity can hold water to Earth, even while Earth is spinning.

If you don't want to admit that, then demonstrate that it cant.

I told that atmospher and water is equal compared earth's rotation; ground moves unified but water and atmosphere are independent structures on the earth. If you can't give up to childish claims so ask rabinoz how he does it.

clearly this gravitational force is not enough to hold the outermost layer of the atmosphere. Anything what absent  can not destroy anything related to me.
The topic is "Water and spinning ball" not the atmosphere!
Again, they have to behave similar. I answered it to Jackinoz. Your denying the facts by childish claims does not change the facts.
• There is no such person as Jackinoz! And you don't post "facts" just "childish claims" that bare no relation to the facts.

• You have not answered this:
So the "gravitational force is" quite sufficient "to hold the outermost layer of the atmosphere".
If you disagree, please show proof.

By the way, the atmosphere that distance from earth does not rotate with the earth because the molecules are sparse there is no "drag" to keep them moving.

Put simply the molecules that make up the atmosphere do not have a high enough thermal velocity to reach the escape velocity from the earth's gravitational field.

So the earth does not lose atmosphere apart from a little "blown off" by the solar wind.

#### wise

• Professor
• Flat Earth Scientist
• 20082
• To Us Everywhere Flat Earth
##### Re: Water and spinning ball
« Reply #27 on: June 17, 2019, 05:16:30 AM »
There is no such person as Jackinoz! And you don't post "facts" just "childish claims" that bare no relation to the facts.

the only person has childish claims is you are.

According to your theory, I do not have to reply your childish claims. Are you okay with this?

Quote
Put simply the molecules that make up the atmosphere do not have a high enough thermal velocity to reach the escape velocity from the earth's gravitational field.
So the earth does not lose atmosphere apart from a little "blown off" by the solar wind.

Is this the only thing you found after about a week thinked? You know your talkings nothing but BS. Why did not simply give up to defend this BS claim?

IT IS DAY. LYNCHING IS ENABLE

#### rabinoz

• 24304
• Real Earth Believer
##### Re: Water and spinning ball
« Reply #28 on: June 17, 2019, 05:36:02 AM »
There is no such person as Jackinoz! And you don't post "facts" just "childish claims" that bare no relation to the facts.

the only person has childish claims is you are.

According to your theory, I do not have to reply your childish claims. Are you okay with this?

Quote
Put simply the molecules that make up the atmosphere do not have a high enough thermal velocity to reach the escape velocity from the earth's gravitational field.
So the earth does not lose atmosphere apart from a little "blown off" by the solar wind.

Is this the only thing you found after about a week thinked? You know your talkings nothing but BS. Why did not simply give up to defend this BS claim?
I don't give up because if it quite correct. If you think I am wrong don't just make silly claims like "your talkings nothing but BS".

In the earlier post I did show a little of the working of it but you've shown nothing but "angry ranting".

If you disagree with this:
Quote
Put simply the molecules that make up the atmosphere do not have a high enough thermal velocity to reach the escape velocity from the earth's gravitational field.
So the earth does not lose atmosphere apart from a little "blown off" by the solar wind.
Show where I am wrong!

#### wise

• Professor
• Flat Earth Scientist
• 20082
• To Us Everywhere Flat Earth
##### Re: Water and spinning ball
« Reply #29 on: June 17, 2019, 05:48:42 AM »
<bs claims>
You've showed nothing but BS claims, means their being nothing but BS.

If you disagree with this:
Quote
Put simply the molecules that make up the atmosphere do not have a high enough thermal velocity to reach the escape velocity from the earth's gravitational field.
So the earth does not lose atmosphere apart from a little "blown off" by the solar wind.
Show where I am wrong!

You have already know its being wrong so want me prove its being wrong, right?

Thermal velocity absolutely isn't anything can keeps hold atmosphere magically. You've prove it by technically other than claiming it baseless.

IT IS DAY. LYNCHING IS ENABLE