Put a flat earthier into space

[Nukehasslefan]

Christ, what a load of uninformed drivel. If you could drive round a 24000 mile circumference at 1000 mph, you would neither feel the curve nor the speed. You would feel the acceleration to that speed, but once at cruising speed it would be like cruising at any other speed in a car. We'll ignore the difference in friction noise (and light presumably) from the tyres, since there's no car that can go that fast, making it a disingenuous comparison.

If you are circling you feel that force whether you're accelerating or not.

 

[legend7]

Who do you think controls us?

1000 mph around a circle is just that regardless of whether you want to place a size to anything.

In fact there you go that's appx how curved the road would be if it was 12,000 mile radius circle, in fact its actually more curved, you really think you world feel that as a huge spinning curve if you were driving down country on that road?
I think not.

You must be logged on to see external links

 

[fyl2u]

1000mph in a straight line pretty much is no different to feeling like you're not moving on an aeroplane

Apparently you could feel it if you jumped high enough straight up into the air on the plane.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

You said think about what a compass does at the poles. I answered then asked you what you think a compass does at the poles. You missed answering that.

My answer was that as you cross the north pole, the compass flips to say north is behind you. Well done, you have just found the pole. Or you could use one of a number of other navigational techniques to verify you are at the pole.

And whose compass flipped to offer south as their destination once they hit the so called centre?

Why do all these successful navigators suddenly have a complete brainfart and get things completely wrong only when going to the poles. You seem to keep skirting around this issue. Either they are badly mistaken or they are telling complete lies and are part of the cover up. Which is it?

Who are we talking about?

So you now claim that the earth rotates faster than the hour hand on a clock?

Nope. Someone argued Earth spins as fast as the hand on a clock as an argument as to why we don't feel the force of the spin.
I said 1000 mph is simply that, regardless of how big the Earth is. We are told it spins at that speed at the equator.
We are also told the reason why Earth bulges at the equator is due to this speed.

Now it runs like a slow clock but still bulges at the equator.

You see this utter contradictory stuff is laughable to be honest.

You really don't understand angular velocity at all.

What? Going around in a circle at a set speed?
It's still told to be 1000 mph rotation at the equator.

Do people in Sunderland also rotate at 1000mph?

Apparently people at the equator do so we'll concentrate on that nonsense.

 

[payne]

And whose compass flipped to offer south as their destination once they hit the so called centre?



Who are we talking about?

Nope. Someone argued Earth spins as fast as the hand on a clock as an argument as to why we don't feel the force of the spin.
I said 1000 mph is simply that, regardless of how big the Earth is. We are told it spins at that speed at the equator.
We are also told the reason why Earth bulges at the equator is due to this speed.

Now it runs like a slow clock but still bulges at the equator.

You see this utter contradictory stuff is laughable to be honest.

What? Going around in a circle at a set speed?
It's still told to be 1000 mph rotation at the equator.


Apparently people at the equator do so we'll concentrate on that nonsense.

Is he really this thick?

 

[Nobby]

Is he really this thick?

Yes

 

[chelt_mackem]

Nope. Someone argued Earth spins as fast as the hand on a clock as an argument as to why we don't feel the force of the spin.
I said 1000 mph is simply that, regardless of how big the Earth is. We are told it spins at that speed at the equator.
We are also told the reason why Earth bulges at the equator is due to this speed.

No, I argued it spins at half the speed of the hour hand on the clock. Keep up at the back.

You can demonstrate this for yourself, by using a 24 hour analogue clock like

You must be logged on to see external links

, just point the hour hand at the sun in the morning, and watch it remain in line with it until sunset, and then still be in line with it at sunrise the next day. A simple experiment.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

The only digging going on here is you digging a massive hole for yourself, trying to pretend that the reason we haven't made it to step 2 is anything other than the fact you don't understand step 1.



V = R*ω where V = instantaneous tangential velocity (m/s), R = radius of rotation (m), and ω = angular velocity (rad/s).

The tangential velocity at the equator can be calculated using Vequator = Requator*ωEarth.

Substituting the appropriate values for Requator (the Earth’s equatorial radius) and ωEarth (the Earth’s sidereal angular rate, as explained and calculated on the next page) yields: Vequator = (6378.1 km)*(7.292124 x 10 -5 rad/s) = 0.46510 km/s = 1674.4 km/hr (1040.4 mph)

Since the tangential velocity of a point on Earth’s surface is a function of its latitude, the equation V = R*ω can be rewritten as V = R*ω *cosL, where cosL is the cosine of the latitude for a point on Earth. (CosL is 1.0 at the equator and decreases with increasing latitude to a value of 0 at the poles).

A mean solar day is the average time it takes the Sun to make successive apparent passages over a given Earth meridian (longitude) and is the familiar 24-hour period measured by our clocks. However, the Sun appears to move an average of (360° per year / 365.25 days per year) or 0.98563° among the stars during a mean solar day as Earth also revolves around the Sun. Because the Earth's rotation and the Sun's apparent daily motion among the stars are both eastward, the time required for a star to pass over a given meridian as Earth rotates under it can be solved using the following proportion: 24 hrs = one sidereal day 360.98563º 360º Solving for one sidereal day gives (24 * 360º / 360.98563º) = 23 hours 56 minutes and 4 seconds.

Based on the sidereal day, Earth’s true angular velocity, ωEarth, is equal to 15.04108°/mean solar hour (360°/23 hours 56 minutes 4 seconds). ωEarth can also be expressed in radians/second (rad/s) using the relationship ωEarth = 2*π /T, where T is Earth’s sidereal period (23 hours 56 minutes 4 seconds). This method produces a result of ωEarth = 7.292124 x 10 -5 rad/s.

For uniform rotation with constant angular velocity ω, the acceleration is radial and given by rω2 at the distance r from the axis. The radius of the earth at the equator is 6.371 million metres, therefore the outward acceleration at the equator is 6371000 x (0.00007292124) x (0.00007292124) = 0.03387783864 m/s squared.

F=MA

So, let's say you weigh 150kg which I think is probably a reasonable estimate.

F= 150 * 0.03387783864

therefore F = 5.0816757969 N

That would be five newtons of force pushing you outwards from the planet because of the spinning.

That's less than half the gravitational force holding you to the earth, which you also can't feel because it's too small a force.

So there we go, with knowledge of maths, we've simultaneously answered the questions "why can't we feel the spin" and "why don't we fly off the earth because of the spin".

I love maths, me.

Any chance on telling me why the Earth supposedly bulges at the equator based on what you're now saying about how slow it's going?

Laws of motion don't require a medium.

All motion requires a medium. All.
Earth itself requires a medium.

They're called LAWS because they're universal.

Yep meaning it applies to everything. two laws of motion equal using a medium. Both laws are just an extension of one main law. The other so called law does not exist as a law.

They would come with a caveat if they were dependent on a medium, but they have no such caveat, because none is necessary.

A medium is required for everything.

The pressure of the air inside the balloon is what makes the skin of the balloon stretch, yes, and the pressure of the skin of the balloon against the air inside the balloon is what pushes the air out of the hole, yes, but what actually propels the balloon is that the pressurised air is trying to escape in every direction because it's under that pressure, but the only opening into a lower pressure zone (the outside world) from which it can escape is at one side of the balloon, so the motion of the balloon is equal and opposite to the force of the air being pushed out of the hole. Air goes one way, balloon goes the other. Equal and opposite. It's Newton's third law of motion, which you stated is THE ONLY LAW THAT MATTERS a few pages ago.

The air escapes in one direction only. Out of the nozzle against atmospheric pressure.

Medium is irrelevant as long as the pressure forcing the air out of the balloon is greater than the pressure exerted back by the medium it is escaping into.

What do you think a medium is?
You're saying it's irrelevant whilst making it relevant.

As the medium is an almost vacuum, there's next to no pressure trying to force the air back into the balloon, therefore acceleration will occur.

No.
In extreme low pressure there is absolutely little reactionary force against what is expelled which means you get extremely tiny movement.
In so called space which is said to be a vacuum and said to not even be low pressure, your rocket and craft are an impossibility to even get there never mind stay in that set up.

The best any rocket could do is to get to a certain height before arcing back down to the ground. All done in atmosphere.

It's an experiment that would actually produce a more spectacular effect in a vacuum than in the regular air.

Yeah so we're told.
The reality is, it wouldn't work at all.

If you ever get the opportunity to try blowing up a balloon in a vacuum and then releasing it, you should try it. It'll blow your mind.

If you try and see what happens to a near fully deflated balloon in a low pressure chamber you'll see that the air inside it expands as the air around it is evacuated.
Why?
Because the air inside that balloon has to fill the gap left by evacuated air from the chamber, which is why you see the balloon expand.
It's all about clearing the mind and seeing past the stories.

The craft isn't working against itself. The propellant force is acting against the craft.

All the propellant is doing is pushing against the atmosphere. Burning propellant expands massively against the atmosphere and causes that atmosphere to be heavily compressed which creates an immediate crush back reaction to create the very foundation of denser air for the rocket to consistently sit atop of with every second of thrust to weight ratio, ensuring the rocket stays balances and vertical until the fuel becomes spent....in short order.

It actually works much better in a vacuum than it does in air, because there's no air pressure causing friction against the motion, and the propellant is escaping into a medium with much lower density. Have a think about that.

There's none to enable motion.
There's zero reactionary gases to enable a push against. The expelled gases would simply expand massively into the so called space vacuum.

If you don't like the balloon analogy because ti's too complicated for you, try this.
Get a cardboard box, draw a line around its base in crayon, then set off some dynamite next to it.

Logon or register to see this image

Same thing.

The dynamite reacts with atmosphere to push the box away.
It creates a massive air blast.

Your space rocket creates nothing. Even by some kind of fantasy of a rocket being placed into this so called vacuum, it's an immediate dead stick.

1000mph in a straight line pretty much is no different to feeling like you're not moving on an aeroplane

We're not talking about a straight line.

In fact there you go that's appx how curved the road would be if it was 12,000 mile radius circle, in fact its actually more curved, you really think you world feel that as a huge spinning curve if you were driving down country on that road?
I think not.

You must be logged on to see external links

Not straight, is it?

No, I argued it spins at half the speed of the hour hand on the clock. Keep up at the back.

You can demonstrate this for yourself, by using a 24 hour analogue clock like

You must be logged on to see external links

, just point the hour hand at the sun in the morning, and watch it remain in line with it until sunset, and then still be in line with it at sunrise the next day. A simple experiment.

Does your Earth spin at 1000 mph at your equator?
If you say yes then forget using a clock as any analogy to the spin unless you want to also alter how the Earth supposedly bulges at the equator.

Can you explain this?

 

[chelt_mackem]

Does your Earth spin at 1000 mph at your equator?
If you say yes then forget using a clock as any analogy to the spin unless you want to also alter how the Earth supposedly bulges at the equator.

Can you explain this?

Of course it does, you know this to be a fact as well as I do. And if you had a (24 hour) clock with an hour hand the radius of the Earth, the outer extreme of that would also move at 1000 mph.

The bulge is explained by the fact that something as large as the Earth has been spinning constantly for billions of years, that (relatively) small centripetal force exerted constantly for that long has caused an almost negligible bulge.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

Of course it does, you know this to be a fact as well as I do. And if you had a (24 hour) clock with an hour hand the radius of the Earth, the outer extreme of that would also move at 1000 mph.

The bulge is explained by the fact that something as large as the Earth has been spinning constantly for billions of years, that (relatively) small centripetal force exerted constantly for that long has caused an almost negligible bulge.

You carry on believing all that.

 

[The Snockerty Friddle]

You carry on believing all that.

Given the so called evidence against, I suspect we all will.
Not sure you realise quite how small the bulge is, but it's not massive.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

Given the so called evidence against, I suspect we all will.
Not sure you realise quite how small the bulge is, but it's not massive.

The fact we're told it bulges due to the spin and then argued against when we don't feel any spin, is utter utter laughable nonsense.
The more I look at it all the stronger I become in terms of seeing it for the absurdity it all is.

 

[The Snockerty Friddle]

The fact we're told it bulges due to the spin and then argued against when we don't feel any spin, is utter utter laughable nonsense.
The more I look at it all the stronger I become in terms of seeing it for the absurdity it all is.

Even though it's been pointed out that you don't feel the constant movement, only acceleration and deceleration.
You must have sat on a speeding train, or in a fast car. When it moves off you feel pressed back into your seat but once up to speed you just move along with it and feel nothing.
Yes, if you are spinning around on a roundabout you'll feel an outward force, but yet again you're failing to grasp the concept of scale. Even on the equator you're not going around in anything like as tight a circle, you will notice nothing.

 

[payne]

Even though it's been pointed out that you don't feel the constant movement, only acceleration and deceleration.
You must have sat on a speeding train, or in a fast car. When it moves off you feel pressed back into your seat but once up to speed you just move along with it and feel nothing.
Yes, if you are spinning around on a roundabout you'll feel an outward force, but yet again you're failing to grasp the concept of scale. Even on the equator you're not going around in anything like as tight a circle, you will notice nothing.

remember scale doesn't work at scale.

 

[legend7]

Not straight, is it?

Straight enough that you wouldn't notice any curve at all if you were driving on it.
Like your magical raised yet flat earth you can't explain.

Have you done any experiments you can show us about propulsion not working in a vaccum?

 

[Nukehasslefan]

Even though it's been pointed out that you don't feel the constant movement, only acceleration and deceleration.
You must have sat on a speeding train, or in a fast car. When it moves off you feel pressed back into your seat but once up to speed you just move along with it and feel nothing.

First of all we are not in a car and are not in a train.
Secondly we are told we are on a spinning ball rotating at over 1000 mph at the bulging equator, which we are told is due to the Earth spin at that speed causing the poles to flatten a little.

Yes, if you are spinning around on a roundabout you'll feel an outward force, but yet again you're failing to grasp the concept of scale. Even on the equator you're not going around in anything like as tight a circle, you will notice nothing.

Of course we're not. Why? Because we absolutely do not live on a spinning globe in a space vacuum.

Straight enough that you wouldn't notice any curve at all if you were driving on it.

Aye and sailing on it. Want to know why?
Because there is no curvature.

Like your magical raised yet flat earth you can't explain.

I explained it and you didn't get it. That's your issue, not mine.

Have you done any experiments you can show us about propulsion not working in a vaccum?

I've done quite a few experiments with very low pressure. None in a vacuum because a vacuum does not exist.

 

[DaveH]

And whose compass flipped to offer south as their destination once they hit the so called centre?



Who are we talking about?

Nope. Someone argued Earth spins as fast as the hand on a clock as an argument as to why we don't feel the force of the spin.
I said 1000 mph is simply that, regardless of how big the Earth is. We are told it spins at that speed at the equator.
We are also told the reason why Earth bulges at the equator is due to this speed.

Now it runs like a slow clock but still bulges at the equator.

You see this utter contradictory stuff is laughable to be honest.

What? Going around in a circle at a set speed?
It's still told to be 1000 mph rotation at the equator.


Apparently people at the equator do so we'll concentrate on that nonsense.

So at the fourth time of asking you can not say why polar explorers were wrong or liars. You can not say what a compass would do on your fantasy earth. Floundering again, best move on.


But 1000mph regardless of size. You really don’t get where the figure comes from do you? It has absolutely everything to do with size.

 

[payne]

First of all we are not in a car and are not in a train.
Secondly we are told we are on a spinning ball rotating at over 1000 mph at the bulging equator, which we are told is due to the Earth spin at that speed causing the poles to flatten a little.


Of course we're not. Why? Because we absolutely do not live on a spinning globe in a space vacuum.

Aye and sailing on it. Want to know why?
Because there is no curvature.

I explained it and you didn't get it. That's your issue, not mine.

I've done quite a few experiments with very low pressure. None in a vacuum because a vacuum does not exist.

but he doesn't present anything as fact!

 

[The Snockerty Friddle]

So as the world comes to terms with artificial intelligence, one small corner of the internet ponders the existence of artificial stupidity.

 

[payne]

So at the fourth time of asking you can not say why polar explorers were wrong or liars. You can not say what a compass would do on your fantasy earth. Floundering again, best move on.


But 1000mph regardless of size. You really don’t get where the figure comes from do you? It has absolutely everything to do with size.

It's fascinating that one person believes he's smarter than everyone else combined and is more of an expert than experts in their specific fields. I said fascinating, I mean ludicrous.