#### jimster

• 287
##### Question re sense of movement as proof point for FE
« on: March 08, 2022, 08:26:39 PM »
The wiki says that one proof point of FE is that you can't see or feel movement, therefor the earth is stationary. I went on a cruise on a very big ship. In my cheap cabin (no window), there was no motion, sound, or visual indication of movement. Yet I am sure that it did move, as I went to sleep in one port and woke up in another, with no sense of movement. My question is whether it is possible for someone to be moving, yet because the movement is smooth, silent, and everything within my sight is moving the exact same way, is it possible for someone to be moving without being aware that they are moving?
I am really curious about so many FE things, like how at sunset in Denver, people in St Louis see the dome as dark with stars, while people in Salt Lake City see the same dome as light blue. FE scientists don't know or won't tell me.

#### SteelyBob

##### Re: Question re sense of movement as proof point for FE
« Reply #1 on: March 08, 2022, 09:57:29 PM »
If there's no acceleration, then no, motion can't be felt. The common FE comment of 'how can we be on a ball spinning at 1000mph hurtling through space...etc' is ridiculous, for several reasons. Firstly, 'spinning' isn't measure in mph - that's just a number chosen to sound big. Spin is rotation, which is an angular rate - 15 degrees per hour in the case of our planet - not an exciting fairground ride, and so slow it can't be detected by our senses. It is measurable though - we weigh slightly less at the equator than we do at the poles, for example, and gyro instruments can easily detect the rotation (and indeed the shape of the planet if they are transported).

Likewise the 'hurtling through space' bit is equally wrong - yes the earth moving rapidly, but motion is relative, and velocity in and of itself can't be felt. Your example is a good one, as is going to sleep on an airliner, or that strange moment in a train station when the train next to you sets off and you can't tell whether you're moving and it's stationary or the other way around.

#### Rog

• 69
##### Re: Question re sense of movement as proof point for FE
« Reply #2 on: March 09, 2022, 12:37:25 AM »
Quote
The wiki says that one proof point of FE is that you can't see or feel movement, therefor the earth is stationary.
When we are standing still, we aren’t moving relative to the earth or its atmosphere so why should we feel or see motion?  When we walk, run, drive or whatever, we are in motion relative to the earth and that’s when we feel and see motion.

#### Tron

• 465
##### Re: Question re sense of movement as proof point for FE
« Reply #3 on: March 09, 2022, 03:38:18 PM »
Imagine a large steel ball attached to a chain extending from the center of earth to its edge.  If the earth rotates every 24 hours and I hold the chain would I be pulled forward?

I don't think so.  No matter how fast the ball is moving at the edge of earth, it still takes a long time to travel in a complete circle.  So I think the chain would lie on the ground with no tension.

Round Earth theory has a similar argument.

And I have pictures to prove it.  Jk.
« Last Edit: March 09, 2022, 06:38:38 PM by MetaTron »
From the surface Earth looks flat.  From space Earth looks round.  Now what?

#### stack

• 3583
##### Re: Question re sense of movement as proof point for FE
« Reply #4 on: March 09, 2022, 06:34:48 PM »
Imagine a large steel ball attached to a chain extending from the center of earth to its edge.  If the earth rotates every 24 hours and I hold the chain would I be pulled forward?

I don't think so.  No matter how fast the ball is moving at the edge of earth, it still takes to long to travel in a complete circle.  So I think the chain will lie on the ground with no tension.

Round Earth theory has a similar argument.

I get confused on who's theory is what. So apologies in advance. Is your's the one where the flat disk of earth rotates like an album on a turntable once every 24 hours?

#### Tron

• 465
##### Re: Question re sense of movement as proof point for FE
« Reply #5 on: March 09, 2022, 06:39:10 PM »
Yes.
From the surface Earth looks flat.  From space Earth looks round.  Now what?

#### jimster

• 287
##### Re: Question re sense of movement as proof point for FE
« Reply #6 on: March 09, 2022, 06:48:22 PM »
Metatron, if I understand correctly, you are standing at the center of FE holding one end of a chain with a "large steel ball" attched at the edge of FE and you expect that if FE is rotating (never heard a FE theory where FE rotates around the center - the sun and moon always move), the chain will not have tension because it is moving slowly? That chain is 8000 miles long and has its own effect on the physics, but let's assume it is weightless. I need to know the exact situation with the ball, its mass and is it lying on the surface, coefficient of friction.

I suggest you forget the chain. In general, a ball at the edge of a spinning disk has angular velocity. If the ball is heavy and the spinning is slow, it just sits there. For 8000 mi radius disk spinning at 1 rev/day, the speed at the equator is 1000 mph, much more at the edge, too lazy to calculate, but 1000 mph is enough. So we have a presumably heavy ball traveling at 1000+ mph at the edge of a disk. That ball will travel straight at any given instant, but the path is curved, so some force must be applied towards the center or it flies off the disk. At 1000+ mph with a heavy ball, gonna be a lot of force.

Another way to look at it is suppose you have a ball traveling at 1000 mph on the end of a chain you are holding. Will the chain just lay on the ground? No. If the chain is 100 ft long and 1 rev/day, not much force. If the ball is traveling at 1000+ mph, huge force.

In general, your thought experiment is meaningless until you put numbers to it. You can imagine the results any way you like, perhaps you like an interpretation that fits with your FE beliefs. Real calculations with observed numbers and Newton's laws are consistent with RE
I am really curious about so many FE things, like how at sunset in Denver, people in St Louis see the dome as dark with stars, while people in Salt Lake City see the same dome as light blue. FE scientists don't know or won't tell me.

#### stack

• 3583
##### Re: Question re sense of movement as proof point for FE
« Reply #7 on: March 09, 2022, 07:01:10 PM »
Yes.

Do the Sun and Moon move too, or are they stationary and just earth rotates?

#### Tron

• 465
##### Re: Question re sense of movement as proof point for FE
« Reply #8 on: March 09, 2022, 07:04:29 PM »
The sun is not moving.  The moon, planets, and stars orbit the sun, as the earth rotates below.
From the surface Earth looks flat.  From space Earth looks round.  Now what?

#### WTF_Seriously

• 1332
• Nobody Important
##### Re: Question re sense of movement as proof point for FE
« Reply #9 on: March 09, 2022, 07:39:49 PM »
The wiki says that one proof point of FE is that you can't see or feel movement, therefor the earth is stationary.

This seem to me to be in direct contradiction of this:

"The Earth is constantly accelerating up at a rate of 32 feet per second squared (or 9.8 meters per second squared). "

from the WIKI FAQ
Flat-Earthers seem to have a very low standard of evidence for what they want to believe but an impossibly high standard of evidence for what they don’t want to believe.

Lee McIntyre, Boston University

#### Tron

• 465
##### Re: Question re sense of movement as proof point for FE
« Reply #10 on: March 09, 2022, 07:43:51 PM »
Metatron, if I understand correctly, you are standing at the center of FE holding one end of a chain with a "large steel ball" attched at the edge of FE and you expect that if FE is rotating (never heard a FE theory where FE rotates around the center - the sun and moon always move), the chain will not have tension because it is moving slowly? That chain is 8000 miles long and has its own effect on the physics, but let's assume it is weightless. I need to know the exact situation with the ball, its mass and is it lying on the surface, coefficient of friction.

Just a regular ball attached to a regular chain thousands of miles long.  The chain doesn't have tension because the ball's turning angle is very small and because we are in an enclosed atmosphere you do not feel the wind speed of going 1000mph

I suggest you forget the chain. In general, a ball at the edge of a spinning disk has angular velocity. If the ball is heavy and the spinning is slow, it just sits there. For 8000 mi radius disk spinning at 1 rev/day, the speed at the equator is 1000 mph, much more at the edge, too lazy to calculate, but 1000 mph is enough. So we have a presumably heavy ball traveling at 1000+ mph at the edge of a disk. That ball will travel straight at any given instant, but the path is curved, so some force must be applied towards the center or it flies off the disk. At 1000+ mph with a heavy ball, gonna be a lot of force.

Again, the path is not curved enough to produce "a lot of force"

Another way to look at it is suppose you have a ball traveling at 1000 mph on the end of a chain you are holding. Will the chain just lay on the ground? No. If the chain is 100 ft long and 1 rev/day, not much force. If the ball is traveling at 1000+ mph, huge force.

I don't want to confuse things.  The ball is not moving on the ground.  The ground is moving, the earth is moving, and the ball just sits on top of it.  The further you go from the center of the earth, the wider the turn becomes!  So wide, you don't notice it, even if your travelling at big speeds.

It's like your ship example.  Once the ship is moving, you don't feel much because you're in an enclosed environment, the sea is smooth, and turns are gentle

In general, your thought experiment is meaningless until you put numbers to it. You can imagine the results any way you like, perhaps you like an interpretation that fits with your FE beliefs. Real calculations with observed numbers and Newton's laws are consistent with RE

Its basically the same argument as Round Earth makes.  Why don't people fly off earth going around the equator at 1000mph?   Its not just gravity!  its momentum and lack of a sharp turning radius
From the surface Earth looks flat.  From space Earth looks round.  Now what?

#### jimster

• 287
##### Re: Question re sense of movement as proof point for FE
« Reply #11 on: March 09, 2022, 07:48:43 PM »
Wow. The stars orbit the sun. Can you explain the orbit of Polaris such that it appears directly north in northern hemisphere and not visible in southern hemisphere? Also Sigma Octantus for the southern hemisphere?

Can you show me a diagram of their orbits over a spinning disk FE?

If Antarctica is at the center, then Sigma Octantus must be directly over the center of FE at all times. That is not orbiting the sun. Where is Polaris?
I am really curious about so many FE things, like how at sunset in Denver, people in St Louis see the dome as dark with stars, while people in Salt Lake City see the same dome as light blue. FE scientists don't know or won't tell me.

#### Pete Svarrior

• e
• Planar Moderator
• 16079
• (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
##### Re: Question re sense of movement as proof point for FE
« Reply #12 on: March 09, 2022, 08:02:00 PM »
This seem to me to be in direct contradiction of this:

"The Earth is constantly accelerating up at a rate of 32 feet per second squared (or 9.8 meters per second squared). "

from the WIKI FAQ
Many FE'ers do not subscribe to the Flat Earth Society's standard model. I think it's safe to say that MetaTron is one of those people, considering he also adheres to an Antarctic-centric map.

If we are not speculating then we must assume

#### jimster

• 287
##### Re: Question re sense of movement as proof point for FE
« Reply #13 on: March 09, 2022, 08:49:25 PM »
Pete,

What do all FEs agree on? I started studying FE in 2015, Rowbotham published in 1864.

Any prospect of convergence?
I am really curious about so many FE things, like how at sunset in Denver, people in St Louis see the dome as dark with stars, while people in Salt Lake City see the same dome as light blue. FE scientists don't know or won't tell me.

#### jimster

• 287
##### Re: Question re sense of movement as proof point for FE
« Reply #14 on: March 09, 2022, 08:51:14 PM »
Metatron,

How does gravity work in your model?
I am really curious about so many FE things, like how at sunset in Denver, people in St Louis see the dome as dark with stars, while people in Salt Lake City see the same dome as light blue. FE scientists don't know or won't tell me.

#### Pete Svarrior

• e
• Planar Moderator
• 16079
• (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
##### Re: Question re sense of movement as proof point for FE
« Reply #15 on: March 09, 2022, 09:13:23 PM »
What do all FEs agree on?
A ridiculous notion. Many RE'ers do not understand the difference between velocity and acceleration. Indeed, we get visitors with that misconception rather frequently.

Should I get on my high horse and start asking whether "RE'ers will agree on whether velocity and acceleration are different things"? Of course I shouldn't, that'd be dumb.

In return, you should try to also not do dumb things.

If we are not speculating then we must assume

#### DuncanDoenitz

• 432
##### Re: Question re sense of movement as proof point for FE
« Reply #16 on: March 09, 2022, 10:05:12 PM »
Sooooo... drifting lazily back towards the OP;

No.  The human body categorically does not have an organ or sensory system to detect movement.  Period.

Of course we sometimes think we do, based upon misinterpretation of our senses of sound, vision, touch and sense-of-self; interpretations based upon our experiences of such things as we live our lives.

We see the surroundings moving through a vehicle window.  We hear the tone of an engine changing, and the rush of slipstream.  We feel the pressure of an aircraft seat against our back, or the lateral and vertical accelerations of a train crossing the points.  Our inner-ears detect acceleration.  We feel the pressure of moving air against our face, and the nerves in our scalp give the thrill of wind in our hair.

If we stand on the Earth while it is moving at constant velocity relative to the Universe; there is no visual perception of movement against the stars, no engine sound, no points, the acceleration as we orbit the sun is imperceptibly small, there is no wind in our hair.

We cannot perceive movement.

#### jimster

• 287
##### Re: Question re sense of movement as proof point for FE
« Reply #17 on: April 29, 2022, 07:32:04 PM »
What do all FEs agree on?
A ridiculous notion. Many RE'ers do not understand the difference between velocity and acceleration. Indeed, we get visitors with that misconception rather frequently.

Should I get on my high horse and start asking whether "RE'ers will agree on whether velocity and acceleration are different things"? Of course I shouldn't, that'd be dumb.

In return, you should try to also not do dumb things.

There is a consensus on what acceleration and velocity are. Within math and physics, it is possible to say someone got it right or wrong. Also within RE, there are hundreds of web pages saying the exact same thing, equivalent diagrams, textbooks, etc, there is one standard model of RE. So one can divide RE into those who say the same thing as all that, and those that are different (wrong).

My point is not that some get it wrong in every group, there are always incorrect explanations of everything. My point is that there is no "right" FE model, there are many different and incompatible models. North pole centric, south pole centric, and bi-polar - which is wrong? FE seems to have no interest in figuring that out, FE seems to want to hold all possibilities open except RE. A south pole centrist will dismiss RE while saying maybe bi-polar is right, I think because they are allies against RE. I continue to not understand why RE is not on the FE possibility list, but anything not RE is possible. If not, why are all three maps in the FAQ? when will it be determined which is right?

Regarding "getting on a high horse", RE is not a high horse. It is accepting lessons from teachers and discoverers and humbly trying to pass it on. No glory of discovery, no distinction of being in a small group of brilliant pioneers so brilliant they saw through a giant hoax playing them for fools. FE is casting themself as someone who has surpassed and disproved scientists since Newton, the new Newton come to fix his errors. That is a high horse indeed.

I am really curious about so many FE things, like how at sunset in Denver, people in St Louis see the dome as dark with stars, while people in Salt Lake City see the same dome as light blue. FE scientists don't know or won't tell me.