Jump to content

Time to rethink the Earth's motion?


JacobsLadder

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, JacobsLadder said:

 

Occam's razor says I am right.

 

No - observable reality says otherwise.

We have told how it is - you seem to not believe it for some reason....  do you go to a club?

 

 

 

 

Seriously - I don't see what you are missing - I think you are doing it on purpose or something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, JacobsLadder said:

If you assert with no evidence then I will dismiss with no evidence.

Sure. That is the reason why you should not be answered in this thread because you gave zero evidence to your ridiculous premises. Consider yourself lucky that a PhD in physics is taking time to talk to you (one of the people in this thread) 

Edited by koti
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, JacobsLadder said:

If you assert with no evidence then I will dismiss with no evidence.

Evidence of what, that the Earth is spinning?   There is plenty. They gave you a list.  What about the pendulum? That was one expt they gave you on the list. 

 

We explained why you were wrong about the helicopter - get your head around it or look to the arts for a career - there isn't one for you in the sciences for sure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, JacobsLadder said:

If you assert with no evidence then I will dismiss with no evidence.

!

Moderator Note

You have been given many lines of evidence, and explanations. That you have ignored them doesn't mean the evidence was not presented.

This little charade is coming to a close. If you do not begin to address the information you have been given (and by this I mean, with your next post), this will be closed.

Your mental model of what Newton's laws of motion imply is wrong. You can either accept (and discuss) the corrections you have been given, or ignore them. But the latter means no further discussion. 

 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So JL- in light of what SwansonT has said  - what are you still misunderstanding or failing to get regarding the helicopter hover?  We know there are no lateral forces (air movements etc aside) - we know inertia (from when it was moving at the same speed of the earth as it was grounded) keeps it going at a tangent to the spinning globe. We know gravity then keeps the copter from spinning off.  The forces from gravity are real and measurable and inertia is easily demonstrable.  What is your problem with this?  You said you had a simpler model...  but if that involves as stationary earth then that is far from being more simple when you take into account the unnatural acrobatics the stars and galaxies have to pull to keep us as the fixed centre  -  far from being simple and in no way a candidate for an Occam's razor type situation....  if anything the opposite. Also - we have been to space and actually SEEN the Earth spinning with human eyes. So - how do you counter this reality with your explanation?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, JacobsLadder said:

From your source:

as soon as the helicopter left the ground, the ground would ZOOM away at up to 1,675 kmh

This is what is wrong.

The helicopter is clearly leaving earth's frame of reference and yet this doesn't happen.That suggests to me that the Earth is not moving.

Sorry to join the party so late, but I've just read up to here and have literally pissed myself laughing and assumed I don't have to read on to know where this thread is going so I think I'll skip to the end.

Yup thought so, I really am psychic :cool:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, swansont said:
!

Moderator Note

You have been given many lines of evidence, and explanations. That you have ignored them doesn't mean the evidence was not presented.

This little charade is coming to a close. If you do not begin to address the information you have been given (and by this I mean, with your next post), this will be closed.

Your mental model of what Newton's laws of motion imply is wrong. You can either accept (and discuss) the corrections you have been given, or ignore them. But the latter means no further discussion. 

 

Okay please be fair.

I was presented with two links on the first reply. I read both and responded.

I was then presented with this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galilean_invariance  which states that the laws of motion are the same in all inertial frames. Nothing to do with my argument.

and then a list with no links:

Sunrise and sunset?

Coriolis force?

Foucault's pendulum?

The motion of the stars?

The fact the Earth is an oblate spheroid?

The Hafele-Keating experiment?

Firstly, "The fact the Earth is an oblate spheroid" is not a fact I accept. The Hafele-Keating experiment was a test of relativity - nothing to do with my argument.

Everything else on the list is in agreement with a non-rotational model.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, JacobsLadder said:

Okay please be fair.

I was presented with two links on the first reply. I read both and responded.

I was then presented with this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galilean_invariance  which states that the laws of motion are the same in all inertial frames. Nothing to do with my argument.

and then a list with no links:

Sunrise and sunset?

Coriolis force?

Foucault's pendulum?

The motion of the stars?

The fact the Earth is an oblate spheroid?

The Hafele-Keating experiment?

Firstly, "The fact the Earth is an oblate spheroid" is not a fact I accept. The Hafele-Keating experiment was a test of relativity - nothing to do with my argument.

Everything else on the list is in agreement with a non-rotational model.

OK I didn't see that coming :doh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, koti said:

Who’s JL?

JacobsLadder, you know, the troll who started this shit.

Just now, Strange said:

It's related to a post I reported earlier. (Browse the last page of the "banned members" thread for clues)

That's the problem with skipping to the end, one misses little nuggets of interest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, JacobsLadder said:

"The fact the Earth is an oblate spheroid" is not a fact I accept.

I presume you play golf by yourself or are there any other flat earth golfers out there? 

17 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

OK I didn't see that coming :doh:

LoL !

15 minutes ago, Strange said:

It's related to a post I reported earlier. (Browse the last page of the "banned members" thread for clues)

I see, will do.

Edit: Yep, probably the same guy.

Edited by koti
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sure this is futile but ...

8 minutes ago, JacobsLadder said:

I was then presented with this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galilean_invariance  which states that the laws of motion are the same in all inertial frames. Nothing to do with my argument.

This has everything to do with your argument. The reason that helicopters and golf balls behave as if the Earth were stationary is because (to a good approximation) it can be treated as an inertial frame of reference. They therefore behave the same as they would if the Earth were stationary or moving through space.

I guess the fact you don't understand this is part of the problem. (Assuming the problem isn't lurking under a bridge somewhere.)

11 minutes ago, JacobsLadder said:

and then a list with no links:

Well, you could do some basic research.

12 minutes ago, JacobsLadder said:

Sunrise and sunset?

I don't think this needs a link, does it? 

We have known for a very long time that the reason we see the sun rise and set is because the Earth rotates (not because the flames are being carried across the celestial sphere on a chariot).

13 minutes ago, JacobsLadder said:

Coriolis force?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coriolis_force

This is force that is felt by objects when in motion in a rotating frame of reference. Guess what: objects in motion on the Earth feel a Cirolis force. Because they are in a rotating frame of reference.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coriolis_force#Applied_to_the_Earth

Quote

Foucault's pendulum?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foucault_pendulum

"The pendulum was introduced in 1851 and was the first experiment to give simple, direct evidence of the earth's rotation. Today, Foucault pendulums are popular displays in science museums and universities.[1]"

16 minutes ago, JacobsLadder said:

The motion of the stars?

Yeah. You know. The way they move across the sky every 24 hours. Almost as if the Earth were rotating.

17 minutes ago, JacobsLadder said:

The fact the Earth is an oblate spheroid?

Caused by the centrifugal forces due to its spin.

19 minutes ago, JacobsLadder said:

The Hafele-Keating experiment?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele–Keating_experiment

The two planes that flew in opposite directions round the Earth experienced different time dilation because their relative speeds were different.

20 minutes ago, JacobsLadder said:

Firstly, "The fact the Earth is an oblate spheroid" is not a fact I accept.

That is hardly relevant. Unless you have some evidence it is a sphere. (Or flat. Or whatever nonsense you believe.)

21 minutes ago, JacobsLadder said:

Everything else on the list is in agreement with a non-rotational model.

You should be able to demonstrate that in suitable mathematical detail then.

4 minutes ago, koti said:

I presume you play golf by yourself or are there any other flat earth golfers out there? 

I expect they get a discount at Trump golf courses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Strange said:

I'm sure this is futile but ...

It's never futile strange, I've learned a lot from your replies to those that refuse to learn, laugh at intelligence, hate stuff etc...

But yes, it's futile.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, JacobsLadder said:

As luck would have it someone already did.

It is called Newtonian Physics.

Nope. Newtonian physics is used in all of those in order to demonstrate that the Earth is rotating.

You can claim otherwise with no evidence, logic or mathematics, but then we can just dismiss your claim.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Strange said:

Nope. Newtonian physics is used in all of those in order to demonstrate that the Earth is rotating.

You can claim otherwise with no evidence, logic or mathematics, but then we can just dismiss your claim.

 

I suspect Newton would have agreed with me.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, JacobsLadder said:

I suspect Newton would have agreed with me.

1. He wouldn't

2. Even if he did, it is irrelevant because he would be wrong.

Although, if he did, at least he would make a rational argument rather than just saying he didn't believe it.

So, you are not going to counter the evidence? Just continue to deny it? Sad!

Edited by Strange
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, JacobsLadder said:

Because apparently the earth rotating at 1,675 kmh. It is not a linear force so you be be subject to centrifugal force throwing you off the earth.

My golf balls don't go further when I hit them east or west. That is evidence the earth is not rotating.

Centripetal acceleration needed prevent a object moving in a circle from flying off on a tangent is equal to v2/r, where v is the velocity of the object and  and r the radius of the circle. 

Tangential velocity at the Equator:  463 m/sec.

Radius of the Earth 6378000 m

This gives a centripetal acceleration of 0.0336 m/s2 compared to the 9.8m/s2 centripetal acceleration supplied by Earth's gravity.  In other words, gravity is 291.6 times as strong asit would need to be in order to just to barely keep you from flying off into space.  The rotational speed at the equator would have to be better than 7.9 km/sec in order to enough to toss you from the surface of the Earth ( And even then, you'd only be flung into an orbit around the Earth unless the velocity exceeded 11.2 km/sec)

Your golf ball does travel further if hit to the East vs. the West assuming you hit the ball exactly the same both ways.  However, for the speed at which you can hit a golf ball, this difference is going to be insignificant compared to other factors such as wind speed and even the variation in your stroke ( even on the driving range, when you are consistently hitting from the same spot and in the same direction, the length of your drive varies from swing to swing.

But while the rotation of the Earth has a minimal effect on your golf game, it does have a significant effect on the accuracy of long range artillery, and when they aim the big guns this has to be taken into account if they want to hit the target. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Janus said:

Centripetal acceleration needed prevent a object moving in a circle from flying off on a tangent is equal to v2/r, where v is the velocity of the object and  and r the radius of the circle. 

Tangential velocity at the Equator:  463 m/sec.

Radius of the Earth 6378000 m

This gives a centripetal acceleration of 0.0336 m/s2 compared to the 9.8m/s2 centripetal acceleration supplied by Earth's gravity.  In other words, gravity is 291.6 times as strong asit would need to be in order to just to barely keep you from flying off into space.  The rotational speed at the equator would have to be better than 7.9 km/sec in order to enough to toss you from the surface of the Earth ( And even then, you'd only be flung into an orbit around the Earth unless the velocity exceeded 11.2 km/sec)

Your golf ball does travel further if hit to the East vs. the West assuming you hit the ball exactly the same both ways.  However, for the speed at which you can hit a golf ball, this difference is going to be insignificant compared to other factors such as wind speed and even the variation in your stroke ( even on the driving range, when you are consistently hitting from the same spot and in the same direction, the length of your drive varies from swing to swing.

But while the rotation of the Earth has a minimal effect on your golf game, it does have a significant effect on the accuracy of long range artillery, and when they aim the big guns this has to be taken into account if they want to hit the target. 

 

I was a little off but close:

3 hours ago, koti said:

Exactly. The centrifugal force at the equator is only about 1/289 of gravity. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, JacobsLadder said:

Okay please be fair.

I was presented with two links on the first reply. I read both and responded.

I was then presented with this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galilean_invariance  which states that the laws of motion are the same in all inertial frames. Nothing to do with my argument.

It actually has everything to do with your argument; you just apparently do not recognize the relevance.

Quote

and then a list with no links:

Sunrise and sunset?

Coriolis force?

Foucault's pendulum?

The motion of the stars?

The fact the Earth is an oblate spheroid?

The Hafele-Keating experiment?

Firstly, "The fact the Earth is an oblate spheroid" is not a fact I accept. The Hafele-Keating experiment was a test of relativity - nothing to do with my argument.

Everything else on the list is in agreement with a non-rotational model.

While some of them might need some explanation (and some of these included explanations), most would be familiar to someone who has a beginner's familiarity with physics. If we take it, then, that you do not, then it strains credulity that you could be adamant that the evidence doesn't exist and sincere in that belief.

(Also the Hafele-Keating experiment does, in fact, show that the earth is rotating. Ignorance of a topic is not a position that lends itself to dismissal)

You can't insist that you are right without having an presenting evidence of that position, and you can't insist others are wrong when you don't understand what they are talking about. What you can do is ask questions to fill in your knowledge of physics. 

35 minutes ago, JacobsLadder said:

I suspect Newton would have agreed with me.

!

Moderator Note

Not good enough. You have to use the physics to show that it supports your ideas. No more song-and-dance.

Because thus far it's not apparent that you understand Newtonian physics at all.

 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.