Ophiolite Posted December 27, 2015 Share Posted December 27, 2015 ....and.. that's it? That is your scientific answer? I think you don't know but you just can't bring yourself to say that! I would have thought this topic would produce a lively discussion but it seems that nobody knows. I am perplexed by this post. Here are some comments, in no particular order. 1. It is difficult to have a lively discussion about something that is so bleeding obvious that it doesn't merit any discussion after the first or second year of secondary school. 2. Since you missed that part of the curriculum here, briefly, is some of the evidence that the Earth is a sphere. a. Ships disappear over the horizon. b. The angle to the midday sun varies along lines of longitude. c. The shadow of the Earth on the moon during a lunar eclipse is curved. d. We can fly or sail around the world. (The clue is in the word around.) e. All other sizable, observed heavenly bodies are roughly spherical. f. We have photographs of the planet from space. (And the calculations to put satellites and spacecraft in orbit would not work if the world was not a sphere.) g. There are several more that hopefully you will find in the links provided by other members. 3. If you are concerned about the "spinning" part, you need only contact any of the lunar astronauts and ask them if the same face of the Earth was always visible. 4. I do not intend to be disparaging, but I note that such a tone has crept into my post. I apologise for that. The thing is that several members have given you sound explanations, which you seem unwilling to accept. Perhaps, they have not explained clearly enough. If you feel that is the case please specify one thing that still troubles you and I'll attempt to deal with that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted December 27, 2015 Share Posted December 27, 2015 We may be dealing with a ... whisper it! ... geocentrist ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ophiolite Posted December 27, 2015 Share Posted December 27, 2015 We may be dealing with a ... whisper it! ... geocentrist ... Well, that's just silly. I know for a fact that the world revolves around me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zapatos Posted December 27, 2015 Share Posted December 27, 2015 Neither you, nor anyone else has answered my question of where the outer reaches of the atmosphere stop spinning, it's not been explained at all, how do you mean "keep explaining in different ways." There is no point at which the outer reaches of the atmosphere stop spinning around the earth. The upper atmosphere travels with the spin of the earth just as the lower atmosphere does. Just as friction from the spin of the earth pulls the lower atmosphere with it in the same direction, so the friction from the lower atmosphere pulls the upper atmosphere with it in the same direction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reasonmclucus Posted December 30, 2015 Share Posted December 30, 2015 The one about the plane reminds me of a old 3 Stooges comedy routine about the math problem of one train going east at 50 mph to a town 200 miles away and another going coming from the town at 60 mph. Where will they meet? Curly's answer "east is east and west is west and never the trains shall meet." Inertia explains why the cannonball goes straight up and comes straight down. An object in motion will remain in motion unless acted upon by some force. Its horizontal motion relative to the earth must remain the same as it goes up and comes down unless it is acted upon by a force to change the velocity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
studiot Posted December 30, 2015 Share Posted December 30, 2015 Inertia explains why the cannonball goes straight up and comes straight down. An object in motion will remain in motion unless acted upon by some force. Its horizontal motion relative to the earth must remain the same as it goes up and comes down unless it is acted upon by a force to change the velocity. I think it's a little different than that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MigL Posted December 31, 2015 Share Posted December 31, 2015 "No one has convinced you" ???? "Is there no evidence" ???? Do you really need to be convinced in this day and age ? There are pictures and videos that SHOW a spinning spherical Earth, for frick's sake ! I find it hard to believe that you use a computer ( and can presumably feed and dress yourself ) yet need to be 'convinced' of these basic facts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Confusi Posted January 1, 2016 Author Share Posted January 1, 2016 I'll just leave this here: http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2010/09/17/but-it-moves-how-we-know-the-e/ If you care to read the comments on that page, you will find that the pendulum has been disproved as much as has proved anything, * it changes course during an eclipse *sometimes it does not rotate at all, sometimes clockwise and sometimes anti clockwise. I believe that science relies on experiments that are repeatable and that give the same results EVERY TIME, so you cant really say that this is incontrovertible proof. d Nobody knows what? The atmosphere is not a solid object and your question has no meaning. Here is an article summarising some of the main evidence: http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2010/09/17/but-it-moves-how-we-know-the-e/ Edit: iNow beat me to it! ...but you say that it is rotating, and it MUST be rotating to account for clouds, airplanes and the cannon ball experiment. You are saying that a compound of gasses rotates with the earth, at the same speed, never loses momentum, and that there is no point at which this atmosphere stops spinning. Sounds absurd tio be honest, how can you say that question has no meaning? I am perplexed by this post. Here are some comments, in no particular order. 1. It is difficult to have a lively discussion about something that is so bleeding obvious that it doesn't merit any discussion after the first or second year of secondary school. 2. Since you missed that part of the curriculum here, briefly, is some of the evidence that the Earth is a sphere. a. Ships disappear over the horizon. b. The angle to the midday sun varies along lines of longitude. c. The shadow of the Earth on the moon during a lunar eclipse is curved. d. We can fly or sail around the world. (The clue is in the word around.) e. All other sizable, observed heavenly bodies are roughly spherical. f. We have photographs of the planet from space. (And the calculations to put satellites and spacecraft in orbit would not work if the world was not a sphere.) g. There are several more that hopefully you will find in the links provided by other members. 3. If you are concerned about the "spinning" part, you need only contact any of the lunar astronauts and ask them if the same face of the Earth was always visible. 4. I do not intend to be disparaging, but I note that such a tone has crept into my post. I apologise for that. The thing is that several members have given you sound explanations, which you seem unwilling to accept. Perhaps, they have not explained clearly enough. If you feel that is the case please specify one thing that still troubles you and I'll attempt to deal with that. 1. Only if you are the sort of person who accepts what he is told is true and builds their entire philosophy around that. id you get told that Santa Clause would come into your house through the chimney when you were a child? Even though it was complete BS and all the evidence was stacked against it, EVERYBODY repeated the same lie, so you accepted it. I'm sure that as you grew older and began to think for yourself, the story changed. 2 a. everything does this, it is called perspective. One of my favorite beaches is six miles across the sea from an island. If the earth was curved, the shore would be 28.3 feet below the horizon, but I can clearly see the tea shop on the shore, and have visited it by kayak (it is a regular sized building not elevated 28 feet!) Here, the rails, horizon and even the stone chippings all disappear at the same point b. This is true on a flat or round earth c. An excerpt from the script " heliocentrists claim that lunar eclipses are caused by the shadow of the ball-Earth occulting the Moon. They claim the Sun, Earth, and Moon spheres perfectly align like three billiard balls in a row so that the Sun’s light casts the Earth’s shadow onto the Moon. Unfortunately for heliocentrists, this explanation is rendered completely invalid due to the fact that lunar eclipses have happened and continue to happen regularly when both the Sun and Moon are still visible together above the horizon! For the Sun’s light to be casting Earth’s shadow onto the Moon, the three bodies must be aligned in a straight 180 degree syzygy, but as early as the time of Pliny, there are records of lunar eclipses happening while both the Sun and Moon are visible in the sky. Therefore the eclipsor of the Moon cannot be the Earth/Earth’s shadow and some other explanation must be sought." d. No we can't there is no place other than the very most southern oceans and on a latitudinal plane that one can sail around the world. IF the world was round, this would be a relatively short voyage (it would also be incredibly dangerous) and if, for example, you were to sail in an eastward direction, the Antarctic would always be to your right. There would be no way of telling if you were sailing around a landmass, or around a circular barrier that encloses the earth, other than the time taken to complete the journey. If you would care to check, every explorer in the antarctic has had problems with trying to pinpoint themselves, and all have reported massive discrepancies according to their reckoning. It is forbidden to fly over the Antarctic (inexplicably!) and there are no routes anywhere that encircle the southern hemisphere, indeed, if you wish to fly from, say Argentina to South Africa, you will inevitably encounter a stop off in the northern hemisphere! e. this is beside the point f. We have ONE photograph of the earth from space, it shows an obviously photoshopped image of a perfectly spherical earth. It does NOT show an oblate spheroid! The same people who created this picture have all the calculations, what if we can't trust these people, and if they lie about the shape of a planet, we surely cannot trust everything they say! g. here are 200 other things to take into account http://www.atlanteanconspiracy.com/2015/08/200-proofs-earth-is-not-spinning-ball.html There is no point at which the outer reaches of the atmosphere stop spinning around the earth. The upper atmosphere travels with the spin of the earth just as the lower atmosphere does. Just as friction from the spin of the earth pulls the lower atmosphere with it in the same direction, so the friction from the lower atmosphere pulls the upper atmosphere with it in the same direction. Sorry, this does not make sense! It either spins or does not, where does this magical boundary exist where the rotation, (which must be 000's of MPH) suddenly stops? "No one has convinced you" ???? "Is there no evidence" ???? Do you really need to be convinced in this day and age ? There are pictures and videos that SHOW a spinning spherical Earth, for frick's sake ! I find it hard to believe that you use a computer ( and can presumably feed and dress yourself ) yet need to be 'convinced' of these basic facts. Very scientific, if you can't win an argument, attack the opponent! If you are going to start insulting my intelligence, please show me some concrete evidence that can be repeated that will always have the same conclusion. You only know what you have been taught! My "evidence" is what my eyes tell me, what my mind can compute. ALL the evidence I see tells me that the earth is not moving. Why, if you are so clever, does this argument rage on still after thousands of years discussion? Because, there is not one single,definitive answer, even after all this time! if you can say this, " I find it hard to believe that you use a computer ( and can presumably feed and dress yourself)" Then I think it only fair to reply with "You are a sheep, you practice "herd think mentality" and accept what you are told even though your own experience does not agree with your paradigm" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted January 1, 2016 Share Posted January 1, 2016 (edited) ...but you say that it is rotating, and it MUST be rotating to account for clouds, airplanes and the cannon ball experiment. No, I never said that. A cannonball is barely affected by the atmosphere so I have no idea what you are talking about. You are saying that a compound of gasses rotates with the earth, at the same speed, never loses momentum, and that there is no point at which this atmosphere stops spinning. No, I never said that either. Judging by the rest of your post I think the answer to the question in the thread title may be in the affirmative. Edited January 1, 2016 by Strange Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
studiot Posted January 1, 2016 Share Posted January 1, 2016 (edited) confusi The reason I posted this topic on a science based forum was to get a scientific answer to my questions. Each time I have posted in this thread I have offered a polite and friendly scientific answer to one or more of your questions. I have also attempted to make the subject more interesting by additional comments that I think might be interesting and enhance the discussion. Each time you have avoided responding until pushed. In particular in my post #16, I offered the point that evidence is provided by ships disappering over the horizon. Ophiolite repeated this point in 2(a), post#26. In your response in post #33 it is clear you do not understand the significance of this point. It is an important point since it was Man's first recorded inkling that the Earth might be curved in some way, not flat. The ancient greek philosophers who noted it had a good understanding of perspective to realise that another effect that could not be explained by perspective was occurring. They also realised why this discovery was peculaiar to the marine environment and dould not reliably be applied on land. So, when offered detail from folks who are well qualified and experienced you can either rush in where angels fear to tread or ask for clarification if you find that detail not sufficient. Edited January 1, 2016 by studiot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted January 1, 2016 Share Posted January 1, 2016 So the OP has this info from a friend? And just asks a simple question, wanting to gain some knowledge? And then when the membership offers honest answers and a potential end to ignorance, the OP pulls out his dishonest agenda and we see the crackpot in innocent friend's clothing. You're not crazy, you're an intellectually dishonest person who is trying to explain something you don't understand by ignoring everyone else's explanation. That's what I think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Confusi Posted January 1, 2016 Author Share Posted January 1, 2016 Ok, I Guess I am becoming obstinate for obstinacy's sake now! Thanks for the replies and thanks for the time. I have learned from this board, however unlikely it may seem, but I do still have some reservations based on my own observations. I bid you all a happy new year and hope you may all find the truth, whatever the truth may be! Farewell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MigL Posted January 1, 2016 Share Posted January 1, 2016 I find it hard not to be insulting of your intelligence. Do you think Photoshop has always been around ? There are hi altitude photographs and film taken from spy planes such as the U-2 and SR-71 from the late 50s/early 60s which SHOW a rotating spherical Earth. But I suppose you think Photoshop ran on vacuum tube mainframes in those days. Get a clue, then, get an opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
imatfaal Posted January 1, 2016 Share Posted January 1, 2016 South African African Airways S223 Jan 13 1830 Local time Sao Paolo to Jo'Burg. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Confusi Posted January 1, 2016 Author Share Posted January 1, 2016 I find it hard not to be insulting of your intelligence. Do you think Photoshop has always been around ? There are hi altitude photographs and film taken from spy planes such as the U-2 and SR-71 from the late 50s/early 60s which SHOW a rotating spherical Earth. But I suppose you think Photoshop ran on vacuum tube mainframes in those days. Get a clue, then, get an opinion. Well I was going to leave it there but I want to reply to this! There was ONE photograph of the earth until 1992, now there are many composite images, all of which are photoshopped "There are some ideas so wrong that only a very intelligent person could believe in them!" -2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ophiolite Posted January 1, 2016 Share Posted January 1, 2016 I believe we now have sufficient data to answer the OP. The answer is yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted January 1, 2016 Share Posted January 1, 2016 "There are some ideas so wrong that only a very intelligent person could believe in them!" OMG, is that yours, or did you hear that elsewhere? Dang, I just got this irony meter for Christmas! It was an order of magnitude more sensitive than the last one that got broken. The technology just can't keep up anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNow Posted January 1, 2016 Share Posted January 1, 2016 There was ONE photograph of the earth until 1992...Sorry, but no. Wrong, yet again. http://www.livescience.com/20369-earth-pictures-space.html OMG, is that yours, or did you hear that elsewhere? . The neg rep to Phi from me was in error. Hope someone will correct it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Confusi Posted January 2, 2016 Author Share Posted January 2, 2016 Sorry, but no. Wrong, yet again. http://www.livescience.com/20369-earth-pictures-space.html The neg rep to Phi from me was in error. Hope someone will correct it. A "Blue Marble" image of the Earth taken from the VIIRS instrument aboard NASA's most recently launched Earth-observing satellite, Suomi NPP. This composite image uses a number of swaths of the Earth's surface taken on Jan. 4, 2012. Not a photo, a composite image! Like this one! OMG, is that yours, or did you hear that elsewhere? George Orwell actually! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted January 2, 2016 Share Posted January 2, 2016 George Orwell actually Well, it is clear that you prefer fiction to science. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Confusi Posted January 2, 2016 Author Share Posted January 2, 2016 Don't be snippy Strange! instead, explain this one to me; My friend and I were enjoying a camping trip on the beach in Ardwell bay, Scotland. the lights from two lighthouses on the Irish coast were clearly visible in the night. The closest distance between Scotland and Ireland is 32.86 miles, meaning the light from the closest would be below the horizon to the tune of 600 feet if the earth is round! The other light was from a position much further south, but also clearly visible! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNow Posted January 2, 2016 Share Posted January 2, 2016 You failed to account for the height of the light tower and the diffusion of the light. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Confusi Posted January 2, 2016 Author Share Posted January 2, 2016 (edited) ROFL oh yeah, I forgot, it's a 600 foot lighthouse! Can't find the height, but you can estimate this, maybe 100, tops? Edited January 2, 2016 by Confusi Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Endy0816 Posted January 2, 2016 Share Posted January 2, 2016 Tropospheric scattering? You just need to something to bounce a signal off of. Before satellites became common, Gov even created an artificial ring. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNow Posted January 2, 2016 Share Posted January 2, 2016 I can see you're not approaching this issue in a mature and intellectually honest manner, so I'll leave you to persist in your ignorance. Edit: cross posted with Endy. My reply was to confusi Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts