Gravitational waves

[DaveP]

Especially the 'string... (shudders)

[Tigerbiten]

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!

If I was in 22nd gear, then I'd be doing around 30 mph towards Eninburgh and the bottom half of the chain would be doing around 5 mph away from Edinburgh.
Schlumpf drive ........

[reohn2]

Especially the 'string... (shudders)

double shudders.
Hoping the combination of clouds,mountains,and the curvature of a(hopefully)spherical earth would hide the view.
Although the minds eye when coupled with an active imagination,which seems all to apparent on this thread ,can have a cruel outcome (treble shudders)............

PS,is this what's termed in physics as 'string theory'?

[661-Pete]

I have to admit, any thoughts of that 'string' fellow were about as far from my mind as - well - Manc's inner psyche Let's hope he's well over the horizon... (I mean the string guy, not you Manc! Please continue!)

Answer to the train problem: correct, the wheel flanges. In the good old days of steam, no other parts of the train would be going backwards (unless the fireman was unusually nifty with the shovel) but in modern electrics or diesel-electrics, it's possible that the motors are spinning so fast that parts of the armatures are indeed going 'backwards'. I don't know enough about the gearing in trains to know for sure.

For bikes, the usual answer is 'none'. If are in an exceptionally low gear, less in effective radius than the length of your crank, then your foot and pedal will be going backwards at the lowest point of its cycle. Have fun trying to get to Edinburgh with that gearing!

[[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')

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

But the flange only exists above the road - so not in a regime where it makes any difference,

[DaveP]

PS,is this what's termed in physics as 'string theory'?

No, I'm afraid not - I've seen the photo

I don't sleep that well, these days

[reohn2]

PS,is this what's termed in physics as 'string theory'?

No, I'm afraid not - I've seen the photo

I don't sleep that well, these days

Why,are you afraid of rolling off the edge?

Thinks.... ....is this where the term 'how long is a piece of string' comes from?

[Manc33]

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

Anything resting on the surface, water, animals, humans.

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.

What has this got to do with anything? The wheel in your example isn't orbiting anything, nor does the Earth "rub" against objects making them spin really fast like a dynamo does touching a wheel.

I have no doubt a dynamo is going at the same speed as a wheel it is touching, how could it not be?

This however has nothing to do with the mechanics behind what I am talking about.

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.

Wait, why are you venturing off planet again?

Nothing that isn't touching the surface can observe any of this because it is the surface that has speed changes - not anything else. I don't care or have to care about outside observers, forget it, why are you introducing that again?

It doesn't even have any bearing (what an outside observer sees).

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...

No I said clouds and mountains - which help along with the fact that your horizon is only three miles away at ground level and the sun's light only has limited throw. All of this means yes, you can have it dark where you are and yes you can have the sun's disk fully blocked by the (false) horizon. You can't see over all that land to see the sun, although its elevation hasn't changed.

...to prevent people spotting that the sun hasn't set (even when it obviously has dropped below the horizon)

Behind, not below.

...provided no explanation of how the sun actually moves...

Around in a circle.

...no explanation of why the earth looks curved...

You mean through a curved eyeball, curved camera lens and curved aeroplane glass?

Oh yes I really "wonder"

When this involves a horizon 50 miles away (up in a plane) no wonder a flat line looks curved, through a lens, a multiple lens then another very weak lens.

...(even when school children send up a balloon with a camera attached)...

Yep, but that has a lens with curved glass, meaning you're not going to get a 1:1 representation. Wide angle lenses are always used in such cases to get more of the scenery in. This in turn curves the horizon.

You then point that out claiming Earth has a visible curve... well actually you're right but it is a curved flat line.

...no explanation as to why the bottom of the moon doesn't drop off...

The bottom?

...or why meteor strikes on the moon show the debris falling back regardless of where on it's sphere it was hit...

Show me a video?

...no explanation as to why everything in the observable solar system is round...

By this logic an orange "has to be long, thin and bent" because a banana is a fruit and so is an orange.

Its confirmation bias, strip it away and whats left?

...apart from the earth, no explanation as to why in a vacuum chamber (with no "density") stuff doesn't float

Stuff has density in a vacuum. It can fall faster because there's no air. Why would you claim the opposite and say they should 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

Hardly.

Where's the evidence of this force called gravity being detected, or measured, or harnessed?

Not one other force we know of cannot be demonstrated in all three ways - there's a clue.

You've just gone along with this "function" or "G" constant, no it isn't there, what proves it? You claiming "density is a function of gravity" well thats just words isn't it, there's no detecting, no measuring, no harnessing, no physical demonstrations, nothing apart from an idea about it tagged onto an assumption that Earth is a spinning ball.

I have even heard you guys say stuff like "any force will do".

Yes and this is exactly the problem, any force will do and that isn't science.

...ignored the fact that ordinary people circumnavigate the globe with no issues and don't fall off the edge...

Your "edge" is just something you got conned with because you never took a proper look at the flat Earth theory, it doesn't have and doesn't need an edge. Pictures of the Antarctic coastline shows us what the perimeter looks like.

Yes I know you're probably visualizing a blue disc flying through space with space whipping around at the edges, its hilarious I agree, but you're being ridiculous and you're only repeating whatever bunk you've taken in about a theory you probably won't look into because "its silly".

Antarctica is the edge... sorry if thats a mundane answer. Cliffs of ice and mountains keep the water in, as is.

So no there isn't and doesn't need to be some waterfall at the "edge" lol. Please.

...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).

Because it doesn't exist. Even the flat Earthers themselves don't claim it does.

All thats beyond the perimeter is a plateau of ice but its not all a plateau, some of it is mountains, there might even be channels you can sail through. How would anyone know when all the exploring was done at the behest of the guys at the top with all the resources to do the exploring, you think they are going to just share their map with the world? Why should they if they went to all the effort of doing that? People are so naive lol.

All they had to do was wrap a flat Earth around a globe anyway and tell us "Thats the Earth you live on".

Virtually every thing you've said can be demonstrated to be ballcocks in a school lab by five year olds.

Hehe. Not really.

And all this because you don't like gravity?

I don't like theories, I like facts.

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.)

Its not a mess.

Its provable due to lack of speed changes at the surface and the fact that we can see some of the same stars in six months - that Earth is not a ball spinning around the sun, those two facts alone are all the proof you could ever want or need.

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...

Because one person is moving at 67,000 MPH minus 1,040 MPH and the other is moving at 67,000 MPH plus 1,040 MPH. If you can't imagine this without it being an Earth ripping itself apart then I can't help you. Yes they move at different speeds at the same moment in time, because Earth spins, it isn't just fixed there orbiting (then they would both move at 67,000 MPH). It is rotating and orbiting.

At 6PM and 6AM for a moment, they do move at the same speed (67,000 MPH), if this is any consolation.

[kwackers]

Wait, why are you venturing off planet again?

There's no point in me even bothering to read all the copious nonsense you've written because until you get your brain around this concept there's no point.

You are the one that went off planet as soon as you mention 67,000 mph.
The earth is only doing that speed because you're looking at it from off planet.
Why not 500,000mph? After all that's the speed of the earth and sun around the galaxy...

Don't even bother replying if you can't figure out this trivial piece of mechanics/physics.

[[XAP]Bob]

You what?

So you believe that the earth is flat (and we have the first positive claim I have seen you make).

What produces time zones, seasons and day/night?

If the Sun moved around the flat earth at some altitude then it would be visible continuously from the North Pole (which I presume is at the centre of the earth, since Antarctica is the 'edge') - this is demonstrably not true.

[Tigerbiten]

You what?

So you believe that the earth is flat (and we have the first positive claim I have seen you make).

What produces time zones, seasons and day/night?

If the Sun moved around the flat earth at some altitude then it would be visible continuously from the North Pole (which I presume is at the centre of the earth, since Antarctica is the 'edge') - this is demonstrably not true.

Not only that .............
If the north pole is the centre and the equator which is half way to the edge moves at 1,000 mph then the south pole at the edge should move at 2,000 mph .......

[Manc33]

You are the one that went off planet as soon as you mention 67,000 mph.
The earth is only doing that speed because you're looking at it from off planet.

Now you've said this I can sort of grasp what you mean, but the fact is you are attached to the planet doing this speed, you're not an outside observer, you are moving at 67,000 MPH (plus or minus 1,040 MPH) and you're not off planet observing that, you're attached to it, so it doesn't come into it to say 67,000 MPH is only applicable to an outside observer, it isn't what they are experiencing as far as the physical movement goes.

The fact that you are attached to the planet is the reason you "feel" the velocity change. No one off planet could feel that or see it, but people off planet don't matter because its the surface of Earth in question and its speed, including whatever is attached to it.

Why not 500,000mph? After all that's the speed of the earth and sun around the galaxy...

Don't even bother replying if you can't figure out this trivial piece of mechanics/physics.

There's nothing to "figure out" if you can visualize it. It is what it is.

Yes I say "visualize it" making you an outside observer but that doesn't negate anything about being attached to the Earth. If you visualize it you won't be able to visualise a speed change and this can only be proven by being attached to the Earth.

Luckily thats easy to test since we are all attached to the Earth.

There's no speed changes happening to us (of 0.99 MPH in 22 seconds). People say "We wouldn't feel that" but you would... after a few pints you would lol. I have heard every answer. I even think I was debating with an astronaut at one point (I wish I was joking).

[Tigerbiten]

0.99 MPH in 22 seconds.

That just means you move 17.424 inches.
What happens after 22 seconds ??
Do you speed up or slow down ??

[[XAP]Bob]

You are the one that went off planet as soon as you mention 67,000 mph.
The earth is only doing that speed because you're looking at it from off planet.

Now you've said this I can sort of grasp what you mean, but the fact is you are attached to the planet doing this speed, you're not an outside observer, you are moving at 67,000 MPH (plus or minus 1,040 MPH) and you're not off planet observing that, you're attached to it, so it doesn't come into it to say 67,000 MPH is only applicable to an outside observer, it isn't what they are experiencing as far as the physical movement goes.

The fact that you are attached to the planet is the reason you "feel" the velocity change. No one off planet could feel that or see it, but people off planet don't matter because its the surface of Earth in question and its speed, including whatever is attached to it.

Why not 500,000mph? After all that's the speed of the earth and sun around the galaxy...

Don't even bother replying if you can't figure out this trivial piece of mechanics/physics.

There's nothing to "figure out" if you can visualize it. It is what it is.

Yes I say "visualize it" making you an outside observer but that doesn't negate anything about being attached to the Earth. If you visualize it you won't be able to visualise a speed change and this can only be proven by being attached to the Earth.

Luckily thats easy to test since we are all attached to the Earth.

There's no speed changes happening to us (of 0.99 MPH in 22 seconds). People say "We wouldn't feel that" but you would... after a few pints you would lol. I have heard every answer. I even think I was debating with an astronaut at one point (I wish I was joking).

No - you can't feel it.

You can "feel" the centrifugal component of acceleration away from the sun, which is...

0.0006g

There is a centrifugal force component whose vector changes relative to the earth's surface - but it's magnitude is just 6% of 1% of the normal force of gravity - similar to the gravitational force we feel from the moon. (If my order of magnitude calculations have just come up right)

[[XAP]Bob]

Poe's law....


[youtube]VNqNnUJVcVs[/youtube]