What makes the world go around?

[Stravinsk]

Centrifugal force is proportional to the speed (measured in revolutions per second) at which a body revolves. The Earth revolves at one revolution per day. That means it revolves at 0.00001157407407407407 revolutions per second. That's very slow. Not much speed to fling anything anywhere.

I've already quoted the data from space.com. If MarkFL was still around I would bet he'd be in agreement, or relative agreement with it. It follows the basics of the model but for some reason you have an issue with it. I don't have an issue with it (as part of the model) because it logically follows to me - although since I reject the model I reject the overall notion that we are spinning in space.

Here's something to try to wrap your head around what you seem to be missing.

Measure a ping pong ball. The circumference around the center. That is the distance it must travel to rotate 1 360degree turn.
Now measure a tennis ball and the distance is increased
A basketball - and it's increased
A beachball - and it's increased

Traveling distance takes *time*. Given a single speed for each of the spheres listed above, takes more time as you go down the list. As the circumference widens, the distance widens - and thus the time to complete that distance widens.

This is the basics you are missing. You can't just say it's rotating once every 24 hours and not take into account the distance that must be covered for that rotation to occur. If a ping pong ball rotates at 1 inch an hour and it's circumference is 5 inches, then it will take 5 hours to complete the rotation.

If the beachball is 37inches in circumference *and is rotating at the same speed as the ping pong ball - 1 inch per hour* - then, because of the larger distance to cover it will take 37 hours as opposed to the 5 hours for the ping pong ball.

Therefore, if you want to believe a spinning globe is rotating "slowly" over 24 hours despite that there is no way it can be "slow" (especially around the widest area - the equator) because of it's size, then what can I say. You do not understand the model you say you believe in.

 

[Romanos]

ADMIN POST


Please keep this thread on topic and respectful rather than making cheap shots at other members. I have cleaned up this thread, removing any offending posts.​

 

[Cassia]

It seems sadly lacking w/o some of the posters

 

[MoreCoffee]

It seems sadly lacking w/o some of the posters

I think that the posters are still here but some posts are not. That is not a bad thing is it? Now we can post according to the topic rather than engage in personal disputes.

 

[tango]

Why would the fact that air resistance exists constitute an "extra variable" to make it an "invalid comparison"? You said that gravity is the function of two masses and the distance between them. Would you like to think that air resistance and aerodynamic drag do not exist just because they don't fit your overall argument?

Because the air resistance affects the gravitational pull.

If you look at your strength and whether or not you can push a car, you may figure that you can do it. If you put someone in the car you can still push the total weight. If that person presses hard on the brakes you probably can't. You didn't change, the weight of the car didn't change, you just added a new variable.

" Trillions of gallons of water has a lot of weight, an air bubble has virtually none. "

Here we go again. Weight does not effect whether an object rises or falls. An air balloon carrying several people into the sky has a lot more weight than a piece of paper or even an air bubble - yet it rises.

The air bubble will rise in the water medium, because it is less dense than the water.
The paper will fall in the air medium, because it is more dense than air.
The paper will fall faster in the air medium if it's crumpled into a ball - has it taken on weight? No. Has it's mass changed? No. Has "gravity" suddenly become stronger? No. All that changed was it's shape, causing it to be less buoyant in the air.

So what's your point here? Seriously, I'm struggling to see any coherent reasoning.

It's perfectly valid and useful. The only reason that Antarctica is not flown over (the official reason) is due to very low temperatures. The extremely low temperatures are caused by relative proximity to the sun on that area of the Globe, so we are told. And yet there seems to be no issue with temperature whatsoever for the ISS orbiting the whole earth. Not on the heat side (way closer to the sun at that elevation during daytime), nor on the cold side (way further away from the sun during nighttime).

Except, as I've already mentioned at least once, what is considered an acceptable risk as far as the ISS is concerned is probably substantially more of a risk than is considered acceptable in the context of a commercial airliner. It appears that the outside temperatures at the cruising altitude of a commercial airliner is already far too cold for humans to survive (hence the occasional death of people who thought they could hide in the wheel mechanisms and get a free flight somewhere) so the fact it's cold in Antarctica wouldn't appear to be a reason not to fly over it as far as a normal (i.e. successfully completed) flight is concerned. But if the plane came down people would have a lot more chance of survival somewhere in the south Pacific than in the ice wilderness of Antarctica.

Yes, it would disprove it - but the fact that they do not is not absence of evidence - especially seeing as that if we lived on a globe aircraft companies would routinely fly over Antarctica simply because between certain locations - it is the shortest route and uses the least amount of fuel and man hours.

Well I don't know the numbers of people traveling between locations where the shortest most convenient route is over Antarctica, so I cannot assume as you have.

I haven't assumed anything. I have merely observed that, even if you could demonstrate that commercial aircraft might find going over Antarctica to be the most direct route, that wouldn't necessarily prove anything unless there were sufficient numbers of people on those flights to make a direct flight economically viable.

What I'm trying to get from you is whether you've got something specific or merely using one observation that could support multiple different hypotheses. If you're just going to throw things back unaddressed then this thread will become as much of a waste of time as the last thread on the topic, where I also gave up on the discussion because you were doing the exact same thing there.

I'm really trying to look at what you're presenting to see what merit your theory might have, but when you keep coming back to accusing me of assuming things when I'm doing anything but I really wonder why I bother with the discussion at all.

But anyway, such things do not explain why no one but "designated persons" can even GO to the supposed geographic south pole. Look it up - it's in International Treaty. The people you see visiting the "south pole" aren't even going to the real one, they've set up a ceremonial site that isn't the real south pole. I've looked at the companies that host such trips - you have to sign and agree to not going into restricted areas. One of those restricted areas is where the geographic south pole is supposed to be!

Such a restriction doesn't specifically prove anything. It may raise questions as to why the restriction is there but doesn't prove anything one way or the other.

 

[Stravinsk]

Because the air resistance affects the gravitational pull.

If you look at your strength and whether or not you can push a car, you may figure that you can do it. If you put someone in the car you can still push the total weight. If that person presses hard on the brakes you probably can't. You didn't change, the weight of the car didn't change, you just added a new variable.

You haven't explained why air resistance is an "extra variable". There is no "gravitational pull" - the only factors are density, buoyancy and aerodynamic drag - which will determine whether an object rises or falls in any given medium.

So what's your point here? Seriously, I'm struggling to see any coherent reasoning.

Point is simple - you brought up weight as a determining factor in the example given - trillions of gallons of water vs an air bubble. My point is simple. The air balloon with people in it has much more weight than an air bubble or a piece of paper - but it rises.
So, in case you missed it - the argument you used which highlights weight has just been countered. Weight it not a factor.

Except, as I've already mentioned at least once, what is considered an acceptable risk as far as the ISS is concerned is probably substantially more of a risk than is considered acceptable in the context of a commercial airliner. It appears that the outside temperatures at the cruising altitude of a commercial airliner is already far too cold for humans to survive (hence the occasional death of people who thought they could hide in the wheel mechanisms and get a free flight somewhere) so the fact it's cold in Antarctica wouldn't appear to be a reason not to fly over it as far as a normal (i.e. successfully completed) flight is concerned. But if the plane came down people would have a lot more chance of survival somewhere in the south Pacific than in the ice wilderness of Antarctica.

You believe it's colder in Antarctica, so cold so that we can't fly over it. Think a minute about why you believe this. Distance away from the sun right? Ok. The distance of the ISS supposedly flying on the dark side of spinning globe is much further away than an airplane over Antarctica. Yet they don't seem to experience either cold (dark side of earth) or heat problems (sun side where they would be much closer to the sun).

I haven't assumed anything. I have merely observed that, even if you could demonstrate that commercial aircraft might find going over Antarctica to be the most direct route, that wouldn't necessarily prove anything unless there were sufficient numbers of people on those flights to make a direct flight economically viable.

Your assumption lies in that you think there are such low numbers of people that would fly routes that go directly over Antarctica.

What I'm trying to get from you is whether you've got something specific or merely using one observation that could support multiple different hypotheses. If you're just going to throw things back unaddressed then this thread will become as much of a waste of time as the last thread on the topic, where I also gave up on the discussion because you were doing the exact same thing there.

In the last thread, as I remember, you didn't download the book I provided. You wouldn't discuss the points in many of the videos provided (or even look at some of them). You introduced straw men such as "sun going under the earth" and, you also had 0 comment on the specific videos showing the sun getting smaller as it moved away (that were not flat earth videos).
So I am now wondering whether I am wasting my time even responding to you on this subject.

I'm really trying to look at what you're presenting to see what merit your theory might have, but when you keep coming back to accusing me of assuming things when I'm doing anything but I really wonder why I bother with the discussion at all.

You did (and are) assuming certain things. Like numbers of people flying from and to locations, like assuming the sun must go "under" the earth in the flat earth model - which I have never stated. And I have answered your points in nearly every post here and the other thread. Your summary dismissal is disingenuous.

Such a restriction doesn't specifically prove anything. It may raise questions as to why the restriction is there but doesn't prove anything one way or the other.

It proves that multiple governments have signed a treaty so that no independant research can be done about the place we live insofar as Antarctica goes.

 

[Stravinsk]

For a thread that is supposed to show globe proofs, it sure is lacking. :smirk:

Note on graphic, I didn't create it nor do I use the suffix "tard" until someone uses it in combination with flat earth belief.

We aren't the ones living in a make believe globular earth.

 

[MoreCoffee]

For a thread that is supposed to show globe proofs, it sure is lacking. :smirk:

Note on graphic, I didn't create it nor do I use the suffix "tard" until someone uses it in combination with flat earth belief.

We aren't the ones living in a make believe globular earth.

Globe ....

 

[MoreCoffee]

Earth ...

Not a photograph, more of a CGI style image or perhaps a photograph with CGI enhancement.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Photograph of part of the Earth taken from space - a low earth orbiting satellite

 

[MoreCoffee]

Since CH is a 2 dimensional forum I cannot show you a 3d globe, but I am sure that is understood.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Here’s a spectacular image of the earth with the full coverage of the Pacific Ocean. This image was obtained by the Galileo spacecraft on December 12, 1990 while on its way to planet Jupiter 1.6 million miles from the Earth.

 

[Stravinsk]

Globe ....

Earth ...

Not a photograph, more of a CGI style image or perhaps a photograph with CGI enhancement.

Photograph of part of the Earth taken from space - a low earth orbiting satellite

Here’s a spectacular image of the earth with the full coverage of the Pacific Ocean. This image was obtained by the Galileo spacecraft on December 12, 1990 while on its way to planet Jupiter 1.6 million miles from the Earth.

Re: Last image -

:smirk:

 

[MoreCoffee]

Debating globe Vs flat earth is not going to be productive, Stravinsk. It is like debating sola scriptura with a committed Catholic and a committed Protestant as the protagonists. Neither one will acknowledge the "evidence" because their theological filters shut out opposing views. They both exist in self reinforcing theology bubbles. Just as a committed spherical earth advocate vs a committed flat earth advocate live in their own bubbles. By making this observation I do not claim that both positions are equally supported by the facts and verifiable evidence I say only that neither protagonist is likely to break out of their "bubble".

 

[Stravinsk]

Debating globe Vs flat earth is not going to be productive, Stravinsk. It is like debating sola scriptura with a committed Catholic and a committed Protestant as the protagonists. Neither one will acknowledge the "evidence" because their theological filters shut out opposing views. They both exist in self reinforcing theology bubbles. Just as a committed spherical earth advocate vs a committed flat earth advocate live in their own bubbles. By making this observation I do not claim that both positions are equally supported by the facts and verifiable evidence I say only that neither protagonist is likely to break out of their "bubble".

What is likely or not isn't the point. I was not a flat earther a few years ago. I am today. I didn't become convinced overnight. It took over a year at looking at the evidence, and I had a lot of questions. I still have some.

Many people will look at these threads who's minds are living in the reality created for them, the one that depends on herd think and falsities such as "people haven't believed this for 500 years", realize there are people that actually believe it, and not because they have not been educated in the heliocentric model (because most have) and go investigate it.

Many others will willfully ignore it because it threatens their comfortable world view, it threatens their reputation in the herd tank (who likes being called the stupidest people on earth?) and they don't want to draw negative attention to themselves.

There is not one single flat earther out there that came to this conclusion because it was popular. It's not. Truth often is not.

 

[Stravinsk]

In continuing with the theme of this thread:

QUESTION FOR SPINNING BALL BELIEVERS:

Why is the earth not losing water every day? The sun heats it and it rises - and since in the Heliocentric model there is no barrier between the vacuum of space and the non-vacuum of the atmosphere - every day some water vapor should float out of the atmosphere and into the vacuum of space.

How will you argue this question? Will you tell me that gravity decides not to work for rising hot water vapor, but then at a certain point decides to work again and keep the water from escaping into space?

My closed terrariums don't lose water, but if I open the lid and keep it open, they will. How does your spinning ball keep the rising water vapor from escaping into space?

 

[MoreCoffee]

In continuing with the theme of this thread:

QUESTION FOR SPINNING BALL BELIEVERS:

Why is the earth not losing water every day? The sun heats it and it rises - and since in the Heliocentric model there is no barrier between the vacuum of space and the non-vacuum of the atmosphere - every day some water vapor should float out of the atmosphere and into the vacuum of space.

How will you argue this question? Will you tell me that gravity decides not to work for rising hot water vapor, but then at a certain point decides to work again and keep the water from escaping into space?

My closed terrariums don't lose water, but if I open the lid and keep it open, they will. How does your spinning ball keep the rising water vapor from escaping into space?

It spins very slowly, just once every 24 hours.

 

[Stravinsk]

Question for Spinning Ball believers:

In the world that you live, you are able to see "live" images and movies from places like the International Space Station, and from satellites that are very far away. Apparently, it's all beamed back to us at great distances from the earth. If the technology exists to send information this way, over very long distances through space then...

Why do we still have cables connecting the Internet at the bottom of the oceans, and why is there still a need for ground based towers?

 

[Stravinsk]

Question for Spinning Ball Believers.

This is a picture of the Nursery Carina Nebula. It was supposedly taken by Hubble.

https://web.archive.org/web/20170113054559/https://www.spacetelescope.org/images/heic1007e/

Image:

Why does this image contain a picture of the head of Mickey Mouse?

Please see my video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=na5PexjsfPY

For more detailed analysis. If you like it - please also "like" it on youtube - because this video does not get many views. Thanks.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Chuckles to the flat flying saucer believer