Gravitational waves

[kwackers]

I can't be buttocked reading let alone answering all of that, so I've just picked on a couple of bits.

No, I am suggesting that I don't know - and you don't either.

Actually I do.

There are some very simple maths that everything obeys, I mean *really* simple, O'level type stuff.
OTOH, you have nothing that can be proven, observed or even makes sense. It's not even consistent with itself and on a few occasions you've changed what you've said to better fit stuff.

The heliocentric model doesn't work because we can still see some of the same stars from the equator in 6 months time and also, the speed of the land needs to change by 2,000 MPH over 12 hours - none of this is the case.

Sorry we're back to square one.
Firstly - the earth wobbles, you know this right? Oh - sorry forgot it can't wobble if it doesn't spin! So obviously the truth means nothing to you because you started off ignoring it.
Anyway, that's the real reason you can see some of the same stars.

The speed thing - well that's been explained to you several times and you simply don't get it. Sorry about that obviously basic physics isn't taught that well in schools anymore.
Go back to my description of the spinning top in the car and explain to me why the spinning top isn't accelerating and slowing down.

Here's another related question.
If one guy is stood in Australia and the other in the UK - how can one be doing 64,000 mph and the other 66,000mph?
Answer they can't, just like the bug on the spinning top isn't accelerating and decelerating.

I'll be honest - if you can't figure that out (and it's basic physics which a five year old can demostrate) then you really should leave the more complex stuff to the big boys.

Sure I do, but not at 14 degrees it doesn't.

Yes it can, because you're not even taking perspective into account in any way at all!

Put a camera on the floor on a flat plane, where is the horizon?

Brilliant. You don't even understand perspective...
The horizon is at infinity - that's how perspective works. It's an non-linear function which is essentially the width of something divided by it's distance.
You ever played a 3d computer game? That's how they calculate perspective - and it looks correct doesn't it?

But you're also assuming the sun is 3,000 miles up when no one knows how high up the sun is in the flat Earth model, or what it

Actually I worked it out using basic maths. Apparent angle of sun at position 1, apparent angle of sun at position 2 then take the arctan to work out how high it must be if the earth is flat. Easy peasy.

Thats why I also said clouds, but you're cherry picking out mountains. You're editing your argument and ignoring my points. I suppose its a debating "tactic".

What happens if there are no clouds? Or does god step in to make sure there always are clouds?

It goes behind the horizon, not "under" it.

But it's to my east and his west - how can it go behind the horizon when there's land and sea there?

When I get a bit more time and need a laugh I'll go back and read the rest of the crap you took the trouble to type.

[Manc33]

Well I'm not reading all of that either then, thats one way of avoiding the debate. Its better than the other one people use "this guy is trolling, just ignore him". The case of the guys that joined here (after being on BR for 12 years) just to reply to me and tell people not to listen to me, is one example. Who gets up at 8AM to reply to me like that unless they were being paid to gate-keep this sort of thing on forums? Why do you think I got banned lol, no rules were broken. I never swear or anything else like it, I might get uppity but only if someone else starts with the usual ill-educated stuff like "where's your tinfoil hat" ignoring every point I make, cherry picking out mountains when I said clouds and mountains and endlessly on.

The tactics people use are just as interesting of a study as the flat Earth or NASA fakery or anything else. Working out why we can all be scammed in this way. How it spans hundreds of years etc.

I never do get answers to the things I ask, thats why I ask them but its funny how practically no one even gets that or realizes it. If there were a direct answer to these things, I wouldn't even be asking it, or have a need to. Also there wouldn't be a debate going on with astrophysicists making rap songs in response to flat Earthers.

You wouldn't have NASA putting out the first image of Earth from space in 43 years in 2015, were it not for people simply asking hey, why the hell aren't there any real photos of Earth from space, in this day and age? Then to cover it they say on their own page "This is the first time in 43 years we have done this" lol.

You're claiming above that in 6 months at the equator facing 180 degrees to where you were facing 6 months prior, looking out to the blackness of "space", you can somehow see even one star you could see 6 months ago?

The only way that is possible would be if light bent 180 degrees.

You're facing the other way so it doesn't matter about the Earth tilting. Go ahead, tilt it, up or down, it doesn't change the 180 degree angle in any way and you're still stuck with the dilemma of being able to see any of the same stars you could see 6 months ago, you cannot possibly be able to if Earth is a spinning ball etc. You're answering it with something that doesn't even address my point about it facing 180 degrees in the other direction.

One argument to this was "parallax" but this actually weakens the case because the further apart two stars are the more chance there is of them both not being in the same field of view! They will answer with any old bunk, even answers that when looked at actually weaken their case, while they talk as though it strengthens it.

Or my favourite one, I tell someone something then 4 replies later they are telling me it as though they came up with it. Its actually flattering when it happens. Its like getting blood from a stone but you can actually get through to some people, it would appear.

EDIT: Had to lol...

If one guy is stood in Australia and the other in the UK - how can one be doing 64,000 mph and the other 66,000mph?
Answer they can't, just like the bug on the spinning top isn't accelerating and decelerating.

I hope you're not being serious?

The equator of a ball does rotate faster than above it and below it. Look at what you're saying.

Yes, because if Earth spins you East in the daytime you're negating 1,040 MPH of the 67,000 MPH orbit and in the night time spinning East still, you're adding 1,040 MPH to the 67,000 MPH orbit, meaning at the equator at 12AM midnight you'd be moving at about 68,000 MPH and at 12PM midday in the same location, 66,000 MPH. This causes 2,000 MPH of speed change in 12 hours or about 166 MPH per hour or about 0.99 MPH per 22 seconds or 20mm worth of movement in 1 second (as acceleration/deceleration).

Me "understanding physics" doesn't enter into it. You'd have to change the laws of physics to say the above isn't the case, the speed changes are mandatory in this setup, in a heliocentric model it has to be the case. This is easily proven with the fact that a waltzer has speed changes and mechanically the Earth moves the same way.

[[XAP]Bob]

The speed does change, but not in the reference frame of the earth.
In the reference of the earth (location only) the velocity changes, but not the speed.
In the reference frame of a rotating earth (like what we are on) then neither changes, but there appears a force - centrifugal force, which is a tiny force compared with gravity, and is felt in a direction perpendicular to the rotation (I.e. Away from the axis).

This force is consistent - it changes by latitude, but so does the gravitational force - which also changes by mountains or subsurface features, the position of the moon, and even Jupiter... (Yes, and technically everything else in the universe, but those deal with most of the effects)

Crikey, we've got back to Grav waves...

You are talking ${expletive}, and you know it.

[Psamathe]

....

This all seems mainstream presenting evidence and theories and Manc disputing them.

So maybe if Manc could answer some initial questions based on the assumption (his assertion ?) that the Earth is flat. I find it difficult to fully get at the theories Manc is arguing for (rather than against) but I get the impression that it is not supporting balls rotating round each other in space (and sorry if I've got this wrong).

1. If you drop something off the edge, where does it go ? (I assume there is an "edge")
2. What is below the surface/level of the Earth ? and how far does it go and what is beyond that ?
3. The sky above our flat Earth his how high ? And what happens above that height ?

(Sorry, I know I departed this thread, but it seems to have drifted off that tack so I'm sticking my head above the parapet again)

Ian

[Psamathe]

Meanwhile for those who do believe in balls rotating round each other, Venus in Lunar Occultation on 6 April at a civilised time !!

But it's a tricky one and needs to be observed with great care. Moon moved across between us and Venus starting shortly after 08:30 am and it's a brief show as it emerges not that long afterwards.

But, constraints:

• Venus is on far side of Sun so it's small
• Moon is not far from New Moon and at only 2%
• So both Venus and Moon will be difficult to find and will need optical aids (binoculars or telescope)
• And that is where the danger is because the show happens not far from the Sun and with binoculars or telescope the Sun is very dangerous so precautions must be taken - and if you are not 110% sure about all appropriate precautions, find an expert source 'cos getting it wrong could blind you permanently.
• It's only available to viewers in England and Southern Ireland.

I'm guessing but you are unlikely to find/see either with the naked eye.

Event takes place in the East and Venus rises shortly before the Sun (almost due East) so you can find it then and follow it (if you have a tracking mount). Event happens at an elevation of around 20 deg (so watch out for trees) at an azimuth of around 120 deg.

Ian

[[XAP]Bob]

Sorry - Manc hasn't yet suggested anything that he does believe in.

Other than classifying optical defects as energy fields...

[kwackers]

I hope you're not being serious?

The equator of a ball does rotate faster than above it and below it. Look at what you're saying.

I'll rephrase this to make it simpler.

A toddler is stood on the equator travelling (according to your figures) 68,000mph at midnight.
On the opposite side of the world (still on the equator) another toddler is stood, there it's midday so according to you he's doing 66,000mph.

How can the world be spinning simultaneously at both 68,000 mph and 66,000mph?

The answer is it doesn't, it rotates at a constant 1000mph(ish).

Seriously this is the level of physics even a 12 year old can understand. If you can't even get this there is absolutely no point discussing anything more complicated with you.

I'll give you a hint (the 3rd one). The world is only doing 67,000mph if you're not stood on it and watch it go by...

Once you've figured it out then come back and we can address some of the other issues you've raised because I reckon that'll give you a better chance of understanding them.

[Manc33]

Watching it go by doesn't come into it though, I have never understood why anyone has said that. This is speed changes at the surface, for something touching the surface. There are no outside observers.

How can the world be spinning simultaneously at both 68,000 mph and 66,000mph?

Because despite the core of the Earth going at a constant 67,000 MPH, at 12AM at the equator, the spin adds 1,000 MPH to that 67,000 MPH (making it 68,000 MPH). At 12PM at the equator, it spins the opposite way in relation to the 67,000 MPH orbit, so it removes 1,000 MPH of movement from that 67,000 MPH (making it 66,000 MPH).

[kwackers]

Watching it go by doesn't come into it though, I have never understood why anyone has said that. This is speed changes at the surface, for something touching the surface. There are no outside observers.

How can the world be spinning simultaneously at both 68,000 mph and 66,000mph?

Because despite the core of the Earth going at a constant 67,000 MPH, at 12AM at the equator, the spin adds 1,000 MPH to that 67,000 MPH (making it 68,000 MPH). At 12PM at the equator, it spins the opposite way in relation to the 67,000 MPH orbit, so it removes 1,000 MPH of movement from that 67,000 MPH (making it 66,000 MPH).

Touching the surface - where is this thing that touching the surface?

A bottle dynamo 'touches the surface' of the wheel, but it's speed is only that of the wheel and doesn't change as the wheel rotates, for a given angular rotation rate it measures the same speed regardless of whether the bike is on a stand and not moving or rolling down the road.
So putting a speed measuring device next to the earth and measuring it's 'speed' yields a value (at the equator) of 1000mph.
To get a value of 67,000mph you *have* to stand where the sun is and watch the earth go past.


You've got serious problems with your understanding of the world, you've taken a simple idea and turned it into a complex mess that you've added bent light, magnetically affected light, mauled basic maths so that 2+2 = 5, introduced a bizarre concept of perspective that ignores the maths behind it, claimed that clouds always obscure the sun to prevent people spotting that the sun hasn't set (even when it obviously has dropped below the horizon), provided no explanation of how the sun actually moves, no explanation of why the earth looks curved (even when school children send up a balloon with a camera attached), no explanation as to why the bottom of the moon doesn't drop off, or why meteor strikes on the moon show the debris falling back regardless of where on it's sphere it was hit, no explanation as to why everything in the observable solar system is round - apart from the earth, no explanation as to why in a vacuum chamber (with no "density") stuff doesn't float, introduced the concept of density as a mechanism that to hold stuff to the earth whilst magically ignoring the fact that density as observed on our surface is a function of gravity, ignored the fact that ordinary people circumnavigate the globe with no issues and don't fall off the edge, can't even explain where this edge is or explain why someone in this day and age hasn't put up photos of it (it'd be one hell of a tourist attraction).

Virtually every thing you've said can be demonstrated to be ballcocks in a school lab by five year olds.
And all this because you don't like gravity? Seriously dude turn your brain on {FFE - family-friendly edit }.
(OTOH if like the majority of flat earthers you're simply trolling - then imo you need a better explanation. One that stands up to scrutiny better than the mess you're using.)

Incidentally you didn't answer the question of how two people 180 degrees apart stood on the same sphere can be travelling at different speeds as it rotates.
I don't blame you, I'd refuse to answer it too if I were you...

*Edited for various spelling mistakes and clarifications.

[kwackers]

As an extra point to illustrate the importance of the point of observation.

You're in the void in a spaceship - there's nothing around you.
Another spaceship appears and goes past at 1000mph.

How fast are you going? How fast is he going?

The answer is you don't know and can never work it out.
He might be doing 1000mph and you're stationary, you might be doing 1000mph and him stationary, he might be doing 10,000mph and you're doing 9000mph.
Without a reference, something to measure your speed against you simply don't know.
The only thing you know is the relative velocity between the two of you and that's true of the spaceship, the earth, the sun and every observable item. The only thing you can do is choose where to stand and measure velocity relative to that point.

You use the value of 67,000mph because that's the speed relative to the sun. Why not use 515,000mph since that how fast we're moving with regards the rest of the galaxy. (Or even the speed of the galaxy through the universe?)

[661-Pete]

OK guys. Here's a well-known old poser for you. A train is speeding from London to Edinburgh. Which parts of the train are travelling from Edinburgh to London?

I think the question must date all the way back to the glorious days of steam, because an often-quoted, and incorrect answer, was "the smoke from the funnel". I disallow that answer, because (a) there's no information on which way the wind was blowing, and (b) once the smoke has left the funnel, it's no longer 'part of the train'.

Let's re-phrase the question so as to make it more pertinent to this forum. You are cycling (brave lad/lass!) from London to Edinburgh. Which parts, if any, of you and your bike are travelling from Edinburgh to London? Careful now!

[[XAP]Bob]

Well, the base of the wheel isn't moving, so the flange of the train wheel will be travelling retrograde.

There may also be some engine components doing the same, but I doubt it.

So for the train it's 'the amont of the wheel *below* the surface of the rail'.

On a bike it could be some of the following, gear dependant. Anything attached to the crank below some certain height (may be below the bottom of the crank stroke, so could be nothing), and possibly the bottom run of the chain (if the above height is above the bottom of the chainring)


(All this assumes that 'to' should have been written 'towards')

[Psamathe]

Well, the base of the wheel isn't moving, so the flange of the train wheel will be travelling retrograde.

There may also be some engine components doing the same, but I doubt it.

So for the train it's 'the amont of the wheel *below* the surface of the rail'.

On a bike it could be some of the following, gear dependant. Anything attached to the crank below some certain height (may be below the bottom of the crank stroke, so could be nothing), and possibly the bottom run of the chain (if the above height is above the bottom of the chainring)


(All this assumes that 'to' should have been written 'towards')

The bike has a variant of the train wheel flange in that when you are on the bike the effective diameter of the wheel is less as the co tact part on the road is compressed. i.e. radius hub to road is less that hub to top (or hub to anywhere not in contact with the road).

Ian

[gaz]

.

[reohn2]

I was anticipating a photo of Peter Stringfellow............... .

I always find it better never to anticipate or even imagine a photo of Peter Stringfellow