Jump to content

Time to rethink the Earth's motion?


JacobsLadder

Recommended Posts

Quote

Strange

2 hours 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.)

 

It isn't actually, that's just the closest regular mathematical shape we use to model it.

But that is of course, one helluva lot closer than a pancake.

 

:)

Edited by studiot
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, DrP said:

Seriously - what have you got that defies the models that you haven't put forwards already and had explained? I think you must be trolling/having a laugh of some kind for sure.

I believe that was evident from the opening post. It never fails to amaze me, the stupidity and denial some people will sink to, to support their personal, mythical religious dogma. In their eyes, scientific fact and the scientific methodology, has helped to bury their personal mythical beliefs, and god, and therefor [in their eyes] must be confronted on all fronts, even to ignoring all evidence and logic to the contrary of those mythical beliefs.

They are entitled to their own personal beliefs, but certainly not their own facts.

6 hours ago, JacobsLadder said:

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.

Other then the other evidence that many have presented to you to point out the error in your personal dogma, there are also the following......

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19910023392.pdf

THE EFFECT OF THE EARTH'S OBLATE SPHEROID SHAPE ON THE ACCURACY OF A TIME-OF-ARRIVAL. LIGHTNING GROUND STRIKE? LOCATING SYSTEM:

ABSTRACT:  

The algorithm used in previous technology time-d-arrival lightning mapping systems was based on the assumption that the earth is a perfect spheroid. 'I'hese systems yield highly-accurate lightning locations, which is their major strength. However, extensive analysis of tower strike data has revealed occasionally significant (one to two kilometers) systematic offset errors which are not explained by the usual error sources. It has been determined that these systematic errors reduce dramatically (in some cases) when the oblate shape of the earth is accounted for. The oblate spheroid correction algorithm and a case example is presented in this paper.

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

 

And here some more precise technical and mathematical data showing the Earth is an oblate spheroid, spinning on its axis, orbiting the Sun, and in turn orbiting the Milky Way galaxy about once every 250 million years or so.

https://gisgeography.com/ellipsoid-oblate-spheroid-earth/

extract:

A datum describes the shape of the Earth in mathematical terms. A datum defines the radius, inverse flattening, semi-major axis and semi-minor axis for an ellipsoid.

Here is the WGS84 datum:

  • Semi-major axis: 6,378,137.0 m
  • Semi-minor axis: 6,356,752.3 m
  • Inverse flattening: 294.978698214

Earth is Flattened Because of Rotational Forces

Sir Isaac Newton proposed that the Earth flattens at the poles because of rotational forces. As the Earth spins on its axis, the centrifugal force causes the Earth to bulge out at the equator. This is why the Earth is better modeled as an ellipsoid, which is a sphere slightly flattened at the poles.

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Now I'm fully aware that using science and scientific data to invalidate non scientific myths held by fanatical religious people is futile,and of course as I said, you are entitled to your own views, but you are not entitled to your own fanciful facts.

 

Edited by beecee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is it in the relative strength of these phenomena that JacobsLadder is mistaken? Centrifugal force from Earth spinning is real, just not very strong in comparison to gravity. Coriolis effect is real, just not very strong compared to air friction and momentum.

JacobsLadder, any effort on my part to look to the numbers (measurements) and maths to demonstrate the relative strengths of the effects that you appear to believe must overwhelm gravity, friction and momentum would only be for my own amusement and edification. But you are claiming you can disprove the current science based understanding of how the combination of all these play out in the real world; I think it is up to you to put numbers to them that show that the centrifugal effect of a spinning world exceeds gravity and that coriolis 'force' on a flying helicopter exceeds and dominates over air resistance and momentum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Ken Fabian said:

Is it in the relative strength of these phenomena that JacobsLadder is mistaken? Centrifugal force from Earth spinning is real, just not very strong in comparison to gravity. Coriolis effect is real, just not very strong compared to air friction and momentum.

JacobsLadder, any effort on my part to look to the numbers (measurements) and maths to demonstrate the relative strengths of the effects that you appear to believe must overwhelm gravity, friction and momentum would only be for my own amusement and edification. But you are claiming you can disprove the current science based understanding of how the combination of all these play out in the real world; I think it is up to you to put numbers to them that show that the centrifugal effect of a spinning world exceeds gravity and that coriolis 'force' on a flying helicopter exceeds and dominates over air resistance and momentum.

For example, using the golf drive example, one can do a quick and dirty estimate of how much further the ball would travel when hit East vs West:

Assume the ball leaves a tee located at the equator* at a 45° angle to the ground at a velocity of 42.4264... m/s ( I chose this value because it makes both the horizontal and vertical  velocity component 30 m/s and would result in a ~200 yd drive over a level surface)

Hitting the ball East would add 30 m/s to the 463 m/s due the Earth's rotation relative to its center, which would bring the centripetal acceleration up  0.0381 m/s2   This would be subtracted from the acceleration due to gravity of 9.8 m/s2 to give a net effect of 9.7618m/s2.  Ignoring air friction, it would take this net downward acceleration 3.0732 sec to stop the upward rise of the ball, and it will take another 3.0732 sec for it to hit the ground.  total flight time of 6.1464 sec, during which it is traveling horizontally at 30m/sec and will cover a distance of 184.39 m or 201.65 yd.

Hitting the ball to the West subtracts 30 m/s from the balls speed relative to the Earth's center, though it will still be moving Eastward at 433 m/s .  This cause the centripetal acceleration to be slightly less, at 0.29396m/s2  . Subtracting this from the acceleration due to gravity and you get a net of 9.7706m/s2.   It takes this acceleration 3.0704 sec to stop the upward rise of the ball and results in a total flight time of 6.1409 sec, during which the ball has traveled 184.23 m or 201.47 yd

This makes a difference in the length of the two drives of 0.18 yds or ~6 1/2 inches**. 

Show me a golfer who's stroke is so consistent that he can hit the ball 200 yd and maintain less than a 7 in difference in the distance from drive to drive, and I've have to wonder why he isn't playing in the PGA

* Placing the tee at the equator gives the greatest difference in the length of the paths. Moving towards the poles reduces the centrifugal effect.

**In reality the difference would be even smaller. To get a more accurate answer involves invoking orbital mechanics to determine the exact path of the balls relative to the Earth's surface. Doing so gives a answer that is under a 5 in. difference.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, beecee said:

I believe that was evident from the opening post. It never fails to amaze me, the stupidity and denial some people will sink to, to support their personal, mythical religious dogma. In their eyes, scientific fact and the scientific methodology, has helped to bury their personal mythical beliefs, and god, and therefor [in their eyes] must be confronted on all fronts, even to ignoring all evidence and logic to the contrary of those mythical beliefs.

They are entitled to their own personal beliefs, but certainly not their own facts.

I do understand the mind set - it isn't always intentional - I was a Christian for many years and was quite evangelical. I used to think that Evolution was a error and that the world was created. That morphed into god driven evolution and 7 days being 7 time periods of hundreds of millions of years rather than days...  but in the end you have to face facts and stop lying to your self and face reality and see it for what it is - a lie (or an error in understanding).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, DrP said:

I do understand the mind set - it isn't always intentional - I was a Christian for many years and was quite evangelical. I used to think that Evolution was a error and that the world was created. That morphed into god driven evolution and 7 days being 7 time periods of hundreds of millions of years rather than days...  but in the end you have to face facts and stop lying to your self and face reality and see it for what it is - a lie (or an error in understanding).

I think that this right here in this thread is more of some kind of a twisted fashion than belief/lack of it or understanding/lack of it. It has to be...how otherwise do you get to a point in life where you’re obviously literate, playing golf and do not accept the fact that the earth is an oblate spheroid.

Edit: Maybe not fashion but some social triabal thing. Many people crave belonging to groups, some end up worshiping footbal clubs and apparently some end up as flat earthers.

Edited by koti
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's why I asked him if he was a member of some club. Maybe he has been brainwashed by the zeal of the speaker, confused by science sounding words and some mis information that sounds like it might be right to the untrained ear.  How someone with a self professed lack of knowledge about the subject can claim that all the current theories are wrong and then ignore explanations from professionals in the field that point out his obvious and basic errors is beyond me... (I mean, it is high school physics and not even slightly advanced).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, DrP said:

That's why I asked him if he was a member of some club. Maybe he has been brainwashed by the zeal of the speaker, confused by science sounding words and some mis information that sounds like it might be right to the untrained ear.  How someone with a self professed lack of knowledge about the subject can claim that all the current theories are wrong and then ignore explanations from professionals in the field that point out his obvious and basic errors is beyond me... (I mean, it is high school physics and not even slightly advanced).

I’m trying to find some reason or justification for it but frankly I just don’t know, its beyond my comprehension.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 16.04.2018 at 11:33 AM, JacobsLadder said:

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.

Jump inside of train.. Are you leaving train.. ?

Jump inside of airplane.. Are you leaving airplane.. ?

 

On 16.04.2018 at 12:09 PM, JacobsLadder said:

It is not linear, therefore we would expect to see anything in earth's atmosphere being ejected into space by the wind.

Particles, molecules, or objects which didn't reach escape velocity will be attracted toward Earth.

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

 

Planets are losing their atmosphere all the time, when highly accelerated particles from cosmos, and mostly from the Sun are giving them enough kinetic energy. Earth and Venus are leaving tail behind them. When Sun will start burning Helium-4 fuel, and other heavier elements, temperature will increase and even more energy will be reaching planets, and entire inner planets will be vaporized..

 

Edited by Sensei
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Sensei said:

Jump inside of train.. Are you leaving train.. ?

Jump inside of airplane.. Are you leaving airplane.. ?

 

If you jump into any vehicle that is moving at a great velocity relative to you, you will likely die rather horribly as you strike surfaces.

If you board a train while it is not moving and it accelerates, you accelerate with it and you gain momentum relative to the earth but equal to that of the train(as a function of mass of course). If you jump up your momentum will remain the same. If you jump up while the train is accelerating, the train will gain momentum relative to you... You might again strike a surface... Although probably not fatally.

Motion is relative! Rotational and orbital motion are self referencing and the momentum is angular momentum.

Edited by Butch
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Butch said:

If you jump into any vehicle that is moving at a great velocity relative to you, you will likely die rather horribly as you strike surfaces.

If you board a train while it is not moving and it accelerates, you accelerate with it and you gain momentum relative to the earth but equal to that of the train(as a function of mass of course). If you jump up your momentum will remain the same. If you jump up while the train is accelerating, the train will gain momentum relative to you... You might again strike a surface... Although probably not fatally.

Motion is relative! Rotational and orbital motion are self referencing and the momentum is angular momentum.

I second Mordred's comment in that other thread.

Keep it up +1

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 17/04/2018 at 12:19 AM, Janus said:

For example, using the golf drive example, one can do a quick and dirty estimate of how much further the ball would travel when hit East vs West:

Assume the ball leaves a tee located at the equator* at a 45° angle to the ground at a velocity of 42.4264... m/s ( I chose this value because it makes both the horizontal and vertical  velocity component 30 m/s and would result in a ~200 yd drive over a level surface)

Hitting the ball East would add 30 m/s to the 463 m/s due the Earth's rotation relative to its center, which would bring the centripetal acceleration up  0.0381 m/s2   This would be subtracted from the acceleration due to gravity of 9.8 m/s2 to give a net effect of 9.7618m/s2.  Ignoring air friction, it would take this net downward acceleration 3.0732 sec to stop the upward rise of the ball, and it will take another 3.0732 sec for it to hit the ground.  total flight time of 6.1464 sec, during which it is traveling horizontally at 30m/sec and will cover a distance of 184.39 m or 201.65 yd.

Hitting the ball to the West subtracts 30 m/s from the balls speed relative to the Earth's center, though it will still be moving Eastward at 433 m/s .  This cause the centripetal acceleration to be slightly less, at 0.29396m/s2  . Subtracting this from the acceleration due to gravity and you get a net of 9.7706m/s2.   It takes this acceleration 3.0704 sec to stop the upward rise of the ball and results in a total flight time of 6.1409 sec, during which the ball has traveled 184.23 m or 201.47 yd

This makes a difference in the length of the two drives of 0.18 yds or ~6 1/2 inches**. 

Show me a golfer who's stroke is so consistent that he can hit the ball 200 yd and maintain less than a 7 in difference in the distance from drive to drive, and I've have to wonder why he isn't playing in the PGA

* Placing the tee at the equator gives the greatest difference in the length of the paths. Moving towards the poles reduces the centrifugal effect.

**In reality the difference would be even smaller. To get a more accurate answer involves invoking orbital mechanics to determine the exact path of the balls relative to the Earth's surface. Doing so gives a answer that is under a 5 in. difference.

 

 

This is explosive evidence.

The fact that there is no difference between hitting the ball East vs West proves beyond reasonable doubt that there is no rotation.

Let us not forget that in this world of GPS tracking a difference of 6-7 inches would be clearly evident in golfing statistics.

It seems I do have the numbers to back up my argument after all.

On 17/04/2018 at 11:55 AM, swansont said:

If the earth weren't an oblate spheroid, atomic clocks would run at different rates at sea level, depending on their latitude. This is not observed. 

The atomic clock running at different rates is very likely entirely due to altitude alone.

Again, you are introducing unnecessary factors and not observing Occam's Razor.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, JacobsLadder said:

The fact that there is no difference between hitting the ball East vs West proves beyond reasonable doubt that there is no rotation.

Perhaps you didn't actually read what was written: there is a difference. It just isn't significant.

12 minutes ago, JacobsLadder said:

The atomic clock running at different rates is very likely entirely due to altitude alone.

I think swansont knows exactly why they run at different rates and doesn't need your help there.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, JacobsLadder said:

 

This is explosive evidence.

The fact that there is no difference between hitting the ball East vs West proves beyond reasonable doubt that there is no rotation.

Let us not forget that in this world of GPS tracking a difference of 6-7 inches would be clearly evident in golfing statistics.

It seems I do have the numbers to back up my argument after all.

Normally I would ask for the numbers and your model but this is so ridiculous that it doesn't make any sense to do it. You are delusional Sir and you need to get help.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, JacobsLadder said:

So because the numbers support my argument it means that numbers are no longer significant.

Your argument was that there was no difference. There is a difference. So you are wrong.

They are not significant when playing golf. They are significant in showing you are wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Strange said:

Your argument was that there was no difference. There is a difference. So you are wrong.

They are not significant when playing golf. They are significant in showing you are wrong.

Nope.

The numbers show we would expect to see a difference. Since we don't see a difference this proves I am correct.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, JacobsLadder said:

Nope.

The numbers show we would expect to see a difference. Since we don't see a difference this proves I am correct.

This is the kind of physics taught to 10 year olds, you are not willing to accept the well put and obvious explanations in this thread and insist on a non rotating earth.  Before I report this thread for lack of your alternative model which is required in the speculations section, please indulge us and explain day & night if according to you the earth is not rotating. Why is there the apparent movement of the sun in the sky every day?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, JacobsLadder said:

I have acknowledged Newtonian physics as fundamental.

If you care to read, I am quite sure that I have already addressed your points.

 

No you have not. If you did in fact acknowledge (and comprehend) Newtonian physics you wouldn't assert delusional claims. Reported. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, JacobsLadder said:
On 17/04/2018 at 11:55 AM, swansont said:

If the earth weren't an oblate spheroid, atomic clocks would run at different rates at sea level, depending on their latitude. This is not observed. 

The atomic clock running at different rates is very likely entirely due to altitude alone.

Again, you are introducing unnecessary factors and not observing Occam's Razor.

 

What do you mean by the term altitude?

What do you understand its relationship to sea level to be?

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.