It's not rocket science

[Manc33]

Bob the outwards pushing force (if you want to call it acceleration) doesn't have any bearing on the velocity change question if it is dealing with something on the surface.

Here's another one I just realised...

On an orbiting Earth, that force is pushing on everything at the surface, at all times. That means on the inside (daytime aka a 12PM position) you're being pushed into the ground by the centrifugal force of the orbit slightly, but in 12 hours (night time at a 12AM position) you then have a slight "lifting" effect, an equal force to the "pushing" effect from 12PM.

So how do you weigh the same at 12AM you weighed at 12PM, especially at the equator?

Yes Earth orbits only once per year... but there would be some difference.

If you're good at maths you'd probably be able to figure out just what force is needed to keep such an orbiting Earth "held" in place by the suns gravity. There is a huge force to it. I can't grasp why the Earth doesn't fly away or get attracted to the sun. Never made sense, never will, because none of it is happening.

Why go to the poles when you can just test around a line of latitude for weight at 12AM and 12PM.

I can't believe I never thought of this before, the model gets worse and worse.

I am talking about orbit now though not rotation, Earth could just not be rotating for the purposes of this, although the rotation itself of course is "lifting" you up off Earth all the time slightly, for all of its 360 degrees, whereas on the orbit, you're being pushed into the ground at 12PM and lifted slightly at 12AM. I don't mean off the ground lol, I mean a very slight amount of weight is reduced from something heavy.

So what is more powerful then in the heliocentric model... the force of the rotation of Earth "lifting" you slightly or the force of the orbit? I am guessing the centrifugal force of Earth spinning would be far greater, but you never know.

That means the orbit pressing and lifting won't have much effect, maybe it could never be separated out from the rotating forces, but if it could then it could be detected with instruments. The fact is none of this happens or is verifiable. Normally people say we just don't have to answer that because its a known thing, I should go back to goat herding etc.

You can argue 'the rotation isn't fast enough to be pushing and lifting in that way' but there does need to be a difference. It isn't possible for something to weigh say one million grams at 12AM then one million grams at 12PM at the equator AND Earth is a spinning ball at the same time. There is not not a chance that is physically possible! The object has to weigh less at night and more in the day, even if it only amounted to one gram in a million, it would be happening if Earth is a spinning ball.

Measurements have shown objects weigh slightly more at the North pole but that could just be the air pressure being higher there. Don't forget in the flat Earth model thats the highest part of the sky if the stars are dome shaped (a huge point of contention in the flat Earth "community" as they call it).

[[XAP]Bob]

The outbound "force" only exists in the frame of the althete, not the spectator.

As for the heliocentric centrifugal force - yes, it does mean you "weigh" more at midnight than midday. The effect is tiny though, about a part in a million if memory serves me correctly.
It is measurable, and is measured.
For most practical applications it makes no difference, the difference is *so* small.
The earth doesnt just spin about its centre, it also orbits the CoM of the earth/moon system, so there is a 24 HR rotation, a 28 day rotation and a 365 day rotation. All of those have their own effects, all are measured and well understood.

there is no outward force from the reference frame of the spectator, they see the tension on the wire, and a constantly accelerating hammer, which travels at constant speed. The acceleration is perpendicular to motion, and always towards the athlete.

[kwackers]

I think the important thing here is flat earth or not the current model allows you to calculate how things behave to silly levels of precision and works for everything.

Manc's world model on the other hand is just a mess of vague and contradicting 'things'.
Not only can it never create a world model that works it can't even produce an equation that could explain how different objects behave in various liquids and never will.

Science requires that a competing theory not only make sense but that it provides a model that explains the theory. Flat earth does neither.

[Postboxer]

You have to remember that the force from the Sun is keeping you orbiting it.

[sjs]

On an orbiting Earth, that force is pushing on everything at the surface, at all times. That means on the inside (daytime aka a 12PM position) you're being pushed into the ground by the centrifugal force of the orbit slightly, but in 12 hours (night time at a 12AM position) you then have a slight "lifting" effect, an equal force to the "pushing" effect from 12PM.

So how do you weigh the same at 12AM you weighed at 12PM, especially at the equator?

Yes Earth orbits only once per year... but there would be some difference.

You're nearly right. On the outside there is a lifting effect (Sun's gravity is a bit weaker than at the position of the earth's centre and because you're fixed on the earth you're being forced to orbit a bit faster than you naturally would be at that radius). But on the inside there's also a lifting effect, ie towards the sun, for the opposite reasons. At the position of the centre of the earth no lifting effect because (in your terms) the centrifugal force is exactly balanced by the sun's gravity. And, there's a stronger effect along the same lines, due to the moon, because earth and moon orbit around a common centre of gravity. Add the effects of sun and moon together, and you've explained the tides, and why there are two per day not one, because there's a lifting effect on both sides of the earth. You've also explained why the height of the tides varies on a monthly basis, as the effects of the sun and moon vary between adding and subtracting to/from each other.

[reohn2]

Time for a musical interlude..... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qKV9bK-CBXo


Sexy voice or WHAAT!

[Mick F]

Just found this whilst surfing the 'net.
Quite an effective visual aid.
http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/sunearth.html

[[XAP]Bob]

If you're good at maths you'd probably be able to figure out just what force is needed to keep such an orbiting Earth "held" in place by the suns gravity. There is a huge force to it. I can't grasp why the Earth doesn't fly away or get attracted to the sun. Never made sense, never will, because none of it is happening.

You can't do the maths, that's why you can't grasp the fact that big things and big forces are possible.
The earth is attracted to the sun, but it's going fast enough sideways that it misses.

Measurements have shown objects weigh slightly more at the North pole but that could just be the air pressure being higher there. Don't forget in the flat Earth model thats the highest part of the sky if the stars are dome shaped (a huge point of contention in the flat Earth "community" as they call it).

Even when those objects are weighed in a vacuum, or more usually the effects of air density are taken into account...

[gaz]

... Measurements have shown objects weigh slightly more at the North pole but that could just be the air pressure being higher there. ...

I'm having trouble grasping how the air pressure is higher at the North pole of the gravity free flat earth. Conventionally lower air temperature = lower air pressure.

[reohn2]

... Measurements have shown objects weigh slightly more at the North pole but that could just be the air pressure being higher there. ...

I'm having trouble grasping how the air pressure is higher at the North pole of the gravity free flat earth. Conventionally lower air temperature = lower air pressure.

I thought there was no 'poles' on a flat earth .

[sjs]

... Measurements have shown objects weigh slightly more at the North pole but that could just be the air pressure being higher there. ...

I'm having trouble grasping how the air pressure is higher at the North pole of the gravity free flat earth. Conventionally lower air temperature = lower air pressure.

I thought there was no 'poles' on a flat earth .

And if the air pressure is higher, air density is higher, so things should weigh less not more, in the Manc world.

[Manc33]

Science requires that a competing theory not only make sense but that it provides a model that explains the theory. Flat earth does neither.

The heliocentric theory provides no working model, unless you can show me a ball with water magically curving around it in some other instance that is not an Earth of 25,000 miles?

Show me a machine that is still, left untouched by any human or force and starts moving due to gravity?

Using the excuse of "We can't replicate that" (in both of the above examples) doesn't answer it, it has to stay unanswered in that case. You can't claim the Earth has water sticking to the side of it and you can't claim gravity is a force when you never demonstrate it.

You use silly answers, like "drop an object" when this just shows the density of the air isn't enough to support the density of what's being dropped through it.

It reminds me of when people claim they have no proof that one species evolved from another because of "How hard it is to find a fossil". Right then stop claiming it! Thats not science! Everything needs proof.

[[XAP]Bob]

Science requires that a competing theory not only make sense but that it provides a model that explains the theory. Flat earth does neither.

The heliocentric theory provides no working model, unless you can show me a ball with water magically curving around it in some other instance that is not an Earth of 25,000 miles?

Europa?

Show me a machine that is still, left untouched by any human or force and starts moving due to gravity?

Show me a magnet that starts moving without the surrounding magnetic field being changed.
The Gravitational field isn't something we can switch off - we can apply an opposing force and then release that force, but you have already said that you don't think that movement caused by gravity is a good example of movement caused by gravity.

Using the excuse of "We can't replicate that" (in both of the above examples) doesn't answer it, it has to stay unanswered in that case. You can't claim the Earth has water sticking to the side of it and you can't claim gravity is a force when you never demonstrate it.

What is 'up' when look at the earth as a whole, it doesn't actually have a meaning. UP is 'away from the centre of the earth' It's Up at the north pole, up at the south pole, and up everywhere in-between.

You use silly answers, like "drop an object" when this just shows the density of the air isn't enough to support the density of what's being dropped through it.

Buoyancy is a different (although somewhat related phenomenon)


Please look at the hammer and explain why that isn't accelerating but the surface of the earth is...

[kwackers]

The heliocentric theory provides no working model

Yep, apart from the one that it does.

The one that will tell you were to find Jupiter in the sky in 4 days or 400 years time to a precision of stunning accuracy, or the phase of the moon when seen from anywhere and any time on the earth.
It'll tell you the forces acting on any object, it'll explain how Sky TV works (and anything else that uses geo stationary satellites) and allow you to easily calculate the angle to set your satellite dish to.
It provides solid explanations for why the sun sets later (or rises earlier) on an airliner at 36,000 feet and even allows you to calculate exactly what time that would be.

In short it's a mechanism that works. You might not like it but until you can repeat the same 'trick' with the nonsense you spout then it'll forever remain nonsense.

[SpannerGeek]

Heres one for Manc

I'm cycling along, riding a bike at say 15mph. There's no obvious means of support to keep me and the bike upright, so what's stopping me from falling over ?