It's not rocket science

[[XAP]Bob]

That word “what” allowed you to correct what is usually bandied about by people who claim the earth is flat, since it allows for the appropriate difference in angle to the sun from different locations.

If the sun is always above the horizon, by an inch or a million miles, then it cannot be cut off at the bottom.

Then there's the issue of why depending on your altitude the sun sets at different times.

These days easy to do with a drone. I was flying one on Sunday, at 400' there's the sun, on the ground - dark.

In fact sunset is defined (for the purposes of Ramadan) differently for the top half of the burj khalifa - something perfectly explained by spherical geometry, and not in the slightest by your theories.

[kwackers]

Then there's the issue of why depending on your altitude the sun sets at different times.

These days easy to do with a drone. I was flying one on Sunday, at 400' there's the sun, on the ground - dark.

In fact sunset is defined (for the purposes of Ramadan) differently for the top half of the burj khalifa - something perfectly explained by spherical geometry, and not in the slightest by your theories.

Me? Which theories?

[[XAP]Bob]

Sorry - quoted you, was talking to Manc33.

Mea culpa

[Postboxer]

How come the stars above the poles appear to be rotating in opposite directions?

[Manc33]

How come the stars above the poles appear to be rotating in opposite directions?

This only correlates with a rotating globe, it's not concrete evidence for it. For example there could just be two points of rotation above a flat earth. This is the case with many other things claimed to be evidence of a rotating globe earth, for example the Eratosthenes sticks and shadows test that even Neil DeGrasse Tyson admitted (to his credit) can work on both models.

[Postboxer]

Is there a model for the two rotation points? I can't picture how it would work, how could all the stars be mapped from different places on the globe, all consistent with being on a rotating globe or all the stars rotating around us, all viewed to be travelling in circles around the polls, the same stars in the same constellations viewed from everywhere in each hemisphere. I can't see how this could ever work on a flat earth. One rotation point presumably is above the centre, the other is somewhere else, where is it?

[[XAP]Bob]

How come the stars above the poles appear to be rotating in opposite directions?

This only correlates with a rotating globe, it's not concrete evidence for it. For example there could just be two points of rotation above a flat earth. This is the case with many other things claimed to be evidence of a rotating globe earth, for example the Eratosthenes sticks and shadows test that even Neil DeGrasse Tyson admitted (to his credit) can work on both models.

Oh, you can make sticks and shadows work... but not whilst remaining consistent with other observations.

The dual rotation being a case in point. Whilst the northern hemisphere rotations can be mapped to a flat earth the stars must rotate very rapidly the other way as they get to the edge of the disk, and the southern cross is visible from points very widely spaced around the edge of the disc simultaneously

[Postboxer]

and the southern cross is visible from points very widely spaced around the edge of the disc simultaneously

Whilst at the same time the Sun mysteriously disappears from view.

[KTHSullivan]

Even rocket science isn't rocket science when you think about it, its just that this is an imposed belief on everyone to make them assume it is too difficult to understand, so people don't bother looking into it and leave it all down to the so-called experts - that in a lot of cases are just playing the system and lying to get more grant money. For example the people that claimed to have discovered a gravity wave didn't, but if they can convince everyone they discovered gravity waves (with the added convenience of having every single educational academy agree with you due to confirmation bias and wanting gravity waves to be there) it is a cakewalk for the brainy people getting that grant money.

If you asked them truthfully what are they really studying, they would probably have to say "Nothing that will accomplish anything, we are just sort of rearranging what we already know and making up new BS for it, but hey it keeps the grant money coming in, want another glass of champagne? Cigar? The caviare is over there if you want some."

Why be an actual physicist if you can be a theoretical physicist and never actually contribute anything real to the field or need to? I bet the theoretical physicists get paid more than the physicists that deal with known facts, its a sick world, where conjecture, confirmation bias and fantasy passes for supposed facts.

You can't propel a rocket in a weightless vacuum the way we get told, the rocket has no air to push against to propel it and it would remain fixed, internally stressing itself, pumping all of the force out in the form of a gas cloud, which indeed, would be moving and yes, with 100% of the force. Don't worry, energy isn't being lost here! All of the force is all still there, but it wouldn't move the rocket anywhere, it would effortlessly pump the gas out into the vacuum, where it would float away in space for billions of years.

Space isn't even up there lol, nothing is floating and it isn't a vacuum, more of an airless void, but thats technically not a vacuum because lower down there is air and there isn't a barrier to it, I mean you can't have a vacuum connected to a non-vacuum and have it maintain itself, so then what's above us isn't a vacuum, it isn't weightless. Where's the proof apart from stuff shown to us on TV screens? If it is that easy then I guess George Clooney and Sandra Bullock really went into space? They must have because we have the footage on video.

It is rocket science but it isn't hard to understand what I just said (in a nutshell it needs air to push on and air isn't there in a vacuum) and this certainly doesn't need maths, it needs understanding - something that is unfortunately completely lacking from the world of mathematics for some reason, I mean when did you ever hear a mathematician admit hey, this entire premise could be wrong?

Never.

Naive mathematicians that insist on their equations matching reality when they actually don't. Someone needs to tell these people that theories aren't facts because I think they are getting a little bit too carried away with it.

"Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality." - Nikola Tesla

Amen to that.

Hmmmmmmmmmm

[Manc33]

...things that fly in the face of a massive body of evidence to the contrary (flat earth...

People laugh but flat earthers are onto something.

For example, there is no compelling evidence the earth is moving. The best I ever saw (in all these flat earth arguments since 2015) is "Foucault's pendulum". OK that pendulum drifts more the further North it is and indeed that fits with a rotating globe, but since the end weight on those pendulums is lead wrapped in brass and (after looking into it) both lead and brass are affected by magnetism - and the magnetic field of the earth gets stronger the further North you go - then it stands to reason a pendulum constructed from such materials, even on a stationary earth, would drift or deviate more the further North you took the pendulum.

Foucault's pendulum contains brass.
"Like aluminum, copper, and zinc, brass does interact with moving magnets."
.EDU Source: https://terpconnect.umd.edu/~wbreslyn/m ... netic.html

Foucault's pendulum contains lead.
"By moving a very strong magnet past a piece lead can actually cause the lead to move."
.EDU Source: https://terpconnect.umd.edu/~wbreslyn/m ... netic.html

Foucault's pendulum is not conclusive enough or compelling enough evidence for earth rotation, so what is?

Do you think you're moving right now... because I sure as hell don't feel like I am! I knew it as a child in fact, when in Primary School, being told earth is moving, I immediately knew it was wrong.

"We only feel acceleration" aha! A brilliant point... were it applicable - but earth is said to be rotating and orbiting. Not just rotating, not just orbiting, but both at the same time. For someone on the earth at the equator, this would cause them to be moving at 66,600 MPH at 6 AM and 6 PM. At 12 noon however they would be moving at 65,600 MPH and at 12 midnight they would be moving at 67,600.

Why?

Imagine looking at earth from above in space. It's rotating anti-clockwise according to the heliocentric model (the model we are all told is correct). If you're on the equator at the left (6 PM) or right (6 AM) then, you're at a point in time where the rotation has you approximately at sunset or sunrise on the equator and the orbit speed of 66,000 MPH is also there. Since the rotation at 6 AM or 6 PM is not adding to or taking away from the orbit speed we can surmise your total speed is 66,600 MPH.

What happens at 12 AM when you are facing as far away from the sun as possible? Then you are on the "outer track" as I call it - the orbit is moving you at 66,600 MPH as always but you're also being rotated in an anti-clockwise orbit and an anti-clockwise rotation, thus your total speed must be 67,600 MPH due to the added 1,000 MPH of rotation. At midday you're being rotated 1,000 MPH against the orbit direction thus it's 66,600 MPH minus 1,000 MPH so your total speed is 65,600 MPH.

If you average this out over 12 hours (12 PM to 12 AM or vice versa from 12 AM to 12 PM) there is obviously a 2,000 MPH difference in total speed of orbit + rotation, from the two times (12 PM to AM or from 12 AM to PM).

Taking that into account, this means your average acceleration needs to be 2.15 cm/s/s over the 12 hours. If your whole body was moved 2cm in 1 second would you feel that or know you were being moved? Yes.

So if we should feel that movement as we get flung around on the surface of the earth in space, yet we obviously don't witness that movement (but should if the heliocentric model is to be trusted) then the heliocentric model is wrong, it's a hoax, a fraud.

This has nothing to do with conspiracies. It only has anything to do with what we should personally witness on a rotating globe earth, yet we don't. We are told we live on a cup cake ride sort of earth, a waltzer, but no such accelerative or decelerative effects are there in reality.

Usually [XAP]Bob has commented back to me about these things and I do respect him. For a start he's far more intelligent than I am, but I know he won't have an explanation for what I just said, because in over 9 years of asking and arguing on endless YT videos and flat earth debates, no one has ever explained an answer to what I just pointed out. One guy I remember perhaps more than anyone spoke with a really posh voice, I used to joke about how he sounded like he went to Eton but I actually think he did and he was very intelligent, hated flat earthers, to the point he used to do what he thought was "trolling" them almost 24/7... a lot of us though he was paid or assigned to do the trolling he used to do, but even he never had an answer to what I just mentioned, no one ever has. The heliocentric globe should have a "wob" effect as orbit clashes with rotation. We would notice the speed change because it's over 2cm in 1 second, per second.

I made this image to try to explain it better:

[Nearholmer]

People laugh but flat earthers are onto something.

It’s a pretty big leap to go from “I don’t quite understand why the motion of the earth isn’t perceptible to me” to “they’re onto something”. They aren’t. On something maybe; on to something, no.

The thing we are all not perceiving, because any variations are so slow and small, is angular displacement, rather than linear displacement.

If you ride the teacups at a fair, you get to feel it big-time, because the rates of change are huge ….. now imagine the teacup ride getting larger (both the cup, and the roundabout that it’s on) and larger, and larger, until the roundabout has a 93 million mile radius, and the cup a 4000 mile radius, and slower, and slower, and slower, until the cup is turning once in 24 hours, and the roundabout once in a year, both at constant rate of angular displacement. You can’t feel the angular displacement. Any changes in it are absolutely minuscule compared with the ordinary accelerations and decelerations consequent upon, say, turning your head.

[jgurney]

there is no compelling evidence the earth is moving

Of course there is. Day and night occur because the Earth is moving in relation to the Sun. The Sun and other stars appear to move across the sky because the Earth is moving in relation to all of them.

2,000 MPH difference in total speed of orbit + rotation, from the two times ..... would you feel that or know you were being moved?

No, any more than we feel the substantial pressure of the atmosphere upon our bodies. It has been going on all our lives and we are thoroughly acclimatised to it.

the heliocentric model is ... a hoax, a fraud. This has nothing to do with conspiracies

Such a fraud, if it existed, would require a very complex conspiracy to sustain it. Such a fraud would require the active participation of large numbers of politicians, academics, engineers and aircraft pilots, among others, all around the world. It would imply a degree of high-level co-operation among global powers that could prevent any wars, and so in turn would imply that conflicts like those in Ukraine and the Middle East are also fraudulent hoaxes. The idea is very much a conspiracy theory, and a quite incredible one.

[roubaixtuesday]

As to the question of Earth's rotation and so on, is it possible life has adapted not to feel the acceleration our bodies may be subjected to. After all, when I hop off a sailing boat after a couple of days, the land moves in a remarkable manner!

No, it's much simpler.

Physics:

Rough figures
Waltzer radius 1m; Earth 6300km
Waltzer rotation 1/ second; Earth 1/ day


r is 6.3 million times less for Walzer
Omega is 3600*24 = 86,400 times more

Relative centripetal force is 86,400 x 86,400/ 6,300,000

Which gives ~1000x less for an object at Earth radius compared to a Waltzer.

The acceleration if you calculate it is ~300x less than gravity.

There's a proper writeup here

https://coolcosmos.ipac.caltech.edu/ask ... 0the%20Sun.

[[XAP]Bob]

And of course "The Final Experiment" has just taken place... with a well documented trip past "the ice wall" into Antarctica, with the subsequent documentation of a 24 hr sun at the south pole. Something that is completely impossible on any flat earth model I've ever seen, and which most of the main flat earth people agreed was incompatible with a flat earth.

Of course I expect all sorts of excuses and rubbish to be made up by them now...


For Manc33:
Focault's pendulum does not depend on being made of metal, and it's behaviour isn't that it's "deflected more at more northern latitudes" but that at the poles it's plane remains static relative to the stars, and the earth rotates under it once per day, and on the equator it's plane doesn't shift relative to the earth.
That's 'precesses more the further away from the equator, and in different directions depending on whether you went north or south'.

"Foucault's pendulum is not conclusive enough or compelling enough evidence for earth rotation, so what is?"
It's a direct observation of the rotation, but you're not understanding what it shows when it's set up at different locations.


"Do you think you're moving right now... because I sure as hell don't feel like I am! I knew it as a child in fact, when in Primary School, being told earth is moving, I immediately knew it was wrong."
How do you know whether you're moving - we literally can't detect movement, any more that we can detect oxygen in the air or our blood (we can detect CO2, but not oxygen). In fact, we're not even all that good at detecting acceleration - if you're at a station and the train next to you moves... it can take a while to realise that you aren't. That's why pilots have to rely on instrumentation, because somatogravic illusions are frequently fatal if they aren't understood.
The acceleration due to the rotation of the earth in the UK is about 0.02 m/s². That's a 500th of the acceleration due to gravity (and in a constant direction relative to our surroundings)
The acceleration due to the rotation around the sun is about 0.006 m/s², about a quarter of the above (i.e a 2,000th of gravity).


"So if we should feel that movement as we get flung around on the surface of the earth in space, yet we obviously don't witness that movement (but should if the heliocentric model is to be trusted) then the heliocentric model is wrong, it's a hoax, a fraud."
Understanding of the forces involved, and of the human sensory system should trivially tell you that we shouldn't feel it at all.
Particularly because it's not a "suddenly move your body 2.5cm in 1 second", it's a continual force, which is summed with all the other continual forces on your body, and those other forces (predominantly gravity from the earth) are orders of magnitude stronger.