The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: sised on May 27, 2018, 02:36:13 PM

Title: 100% undebunkable
Post by: sised on May 27, 2018, 02:36:13 PM
100% undebunkable proof that the earth is not flat. but read the proof before you ban me please:
if the earth was flat we would be able to see all stars from all sides of the earth. which dosen't happen. also you claim that objects that are far away can't been seen beacause human eye records ~450 Mp but then how do we see the stars that are supposed to be 0.5 from the lenght of the plate away from us. also planes aren't effected of the atmosphere beacause the gravity is stronger. we don't feel the earth's movement beacause we cannot feel speed. we can feel speed changes. take an experiment: use an elevator and close your eyes. no press the button to move the elevator. you can feel that  the elevator moves at first but then you have no idea. u still feel something beacause the elevator dosen't move at 100% stable speeds. give me proof that the earth is flat and i will debunk it for you  ;)
Title: Re: 100% undebunkable
Post by: Dr David Thork on May 27, 2018, 08:10:27 PM
Earth is moving?

Interesting.

So, at the surface the air must be moving with the earth then at 1040mph ... at the equator. As I move north and south, that air needs to decelerate to a full stop (well but for what must be a huge cyclone at the poles). Also as I travel up into the atmosphere, the air needs to accelerate to get round this bigger circumference. The air, according to your theory must be changing velocity to match location imperceptibly all the time else I would feel that wind rush.

Now, knowing what I know about bodies of air rubbing against each other, why am I not being hit by lightning every 2 seconds as all that shear force generates static electricity?
And with this huge amount of energy transfer to constantly speed the air up or it slow down to keep it travelling the same speed as earth everywhere, regardless of winds, altitude, terrain and of course thermal heating to raise pockets of air, what powers that?
I could equally apply the sea to this same problem? What speeds the sea up as currents go towards the equator? From zero at the poles to over 1000 mph at the equator?
And surely this required power would act as a massive brake on the earth? Constant damping. Forever slowing it down very rapidly (consider the weight of all the air and all the water.)
The earth is not tidally locked. It spins ... at a more or less constant speed with no extra energy being added in to maintain spinning.

Or is the earth a perpetual motion machine?

Round earth theory is stupid.
Title: Re: 100% undebunkable
Post by: Max_Almond on May 27, 2018, 09:12:38 PM
Bearing in mind, of course, that although 1040 mph (the speed of the earth's rotation at the equator) sounds pretty fast, and undoubtedly would be in a car, it's a little misleading: revolutions per minute would be more like it, and that equates to 0.0069rpm.

Not very fast at all.
Title: Re: 100% undebunkable
Post by: AATW on May 27, 2018, 09:40:42 PM
The earth is not tidally locked. It spins ... at a more or less constant speed with no extra energy being added in to maintain spinning.
You don't need extra energy to keep something spinning, when something is spinning you need a force to stop it.
What force would stop it spinning? It actually is slowing down, but not enough to be noticable.

Quote
Round earth theory is stupid.
It's not really a theory. You not understanding stuff doesn't mean that stuff is stupid.
And given that you guys can't even make a map which works or agree whether there's one pole or two (Spoiler: There's two, both have been explored) and relies on the idea that thousands of people in multiple countries in multiple industries are all lying for no well explained reason, it's a bit right to call RE stupid.
Title: Re: 100% undebunkable
Post by: Dr David Thork on May 27, 2018, 09:54:40 PM
Bearing in mind, of course, that although 1040 mph (the speed of the earth's rotation at the equator) sounds pretty fast, and undoubtedly would be in a car, it's a little misleading: revolutions per minute would be more like it, and that equates to 0.0069rpm.

Not very fast at all.
You are looking to move a molecule of air 40,000km every day! That's a hell of a distance for it to travel. And that takes power.


The earth is not tidally locked. It spins ... at a more or less constant speed with no extra energy being added in to maintain spinning.
You don't need extra energy to keep something spinning, when something is spinning you need a force to stop it.
What force would stop it spinning? It actually is slowing down, but not enough to be noticable.
Actually you need to exert a force any time you want to see a rate of change to anything. Whether that be air slowing down to go away from the equator, speeding up moving towards it, or speeding up as it gets higher in the atmosphere.

And given that you guys can't even make a map
How about you map out the whole of the USA and come back to us, we'll do the rest of earth after your start.  ::)

thousands of people in multiple countries in multiple industries are all lying for no well explained reason, it's a bit right to call RE stupid.
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/40/Appeal-to-Popularity

Title: Re: 100% undebunkable
Post by: AATW on May 27, 2018, 10:20:06 PM
How about you map out the whole of the USA and come back to us, we'll do the rest of earth after your start.  ::)
Why would I do that? It's been done.
And done reliably enough that the entire transport industry seems to get us round fine both domestically and internationally.
What basis do you have for thinking the extensive mapping work already done of the world is wrong?

And I agree the globe earth isn't true because it's popular, it's popular because it's true, observably so and verified in numerous ways.
Title: Re: 100% undebunkable
Post by: rabinoz on May 28, 2018, 02:08:12 AM
Earth is moving?

Interesting.

So, at the surface the air must be moving with the earth then at 1040mph ... at the equator. As I move north and south, that air needs to decelerate to a full stop (well but for what must be a huge cyclone at the poles). Also as I travel up into the atmosphere, the air needs to accelerate to get round this bigger circumference. The air, according to your theory must be changing velocity to match location imperceptibly all the time else I would feel that wind rush.
This "massive" speed difference 0 to 1040 mph over 6215 miles is only a change in speed of about 1/6 mph for each mile!

You say "As I move north and south, that air needs to decelerate to a full stop".
That is not quite correct. If you move north (in the Northern Hemisphere) your east-west motion must slow down imperceptible, but only by about 1/6 mph for each mile you move.
"That air needs to decelerate to a full stop" only if the air is being moved all the way to the pole by some other effect, maybe differential heating.
But there would be no "rush"!

There is no relative motion that can cause any slippage. Look at a wheel of your car travelling at 60 mph.
The wheels of my car have a radius of about 15 inches, so over a distance of 15 inches the tyre and wheel's peripheral speed is going from 60 miles per hour to zero.
Why doesn't the wheel tear itself to pieces? There is no relative motion causing slippage.
On the surface, it does seem a sort of a paradox. As we move out from the centre the linear speed is changing but obviously, the can be no "rubbing together" as it is entirely due to rotation.

Air caused to travel from one latitude to another does need to change velocity and this is the well known Coriolis effect, the cause of rotating high and low-pressure weather systems.

Quote from: Baby Thork
Now, knowing what I know about bodies of air rubbing against each other, why am I not being hit by lightning every 2 seconds as all that shear force generates static electricity?
There are no "bodies of air rubbing against each other" from the above cause. So what you think you "know about bodies of air rubbing against each other" is irrelevant.
But clean dry air "bodies of air rubbing against each other" do not cause static, though air with fine dust particles can charge the dust.

There are "bodies of air rubbing against each other" from temperature differences caused by the uneven heating from the sun.

Quote from: Baby Thork
And with this huge amount of energy transfer to constantly speed the air up or it slow down to keep it travelling the same speed as earth everywhere, regardless of winds, altitude, terrain and of course thermal heating to raise pockets of air, what powers that?
I could equally apply the sea to this same problem?
And your whole premise is still false.

Quote from: Baby Thork
What speeds the sea up as currents go towards the equator? From zero at the poles to over 1000 mph at the equator?
And surely this required power would act as a massive brake on the earth? Constant damping. Forever slowing it down very rapidly (consider the weight of all the air and all the water.)
The same answer as for the air. It needs some other effect to cause the water to move.
You ask, "What speeds the sea up as currents go towards the equator?" Before you ask that you need to ask what is going to make those currents go towards the equator?
The answer to that is that initially it is density changes caused by generally warmer temperature in the tropics and cooler water away from the equator.
And what "speeds the sea up as currents go towards the equator" is energy from the rotating earth but this water has to go back to the slower speed nearer the poles eventually.
That slowing down of the water puts that energy back into the rotating earth.

It's all nicely in balance and initially caused by heat from the sun. Were there no heat from the sun (or other source) it would all settle down.

Quote from: Baby Thork
The earth is not tidally locked. It spins ... at a more or less constant speed with no extra energy being added in to maintain spinning.
There is "no extra energy being added in to maintain spinning" but there is energy added to initially cause the air and ocean currents.

Quote from: Baby Thork
Or is the earth a perpetual motion machine?
No it is not "a perpetual motion machine" and it is measurably slowing down, but mainly due to tidal forces from the moon.
Quote
Over the past 27 centuries, the average day has lengthened at a rate of about +1.8 milliseconds (ms) per century, a British research team concluded in the journal Proceedings of the Royal Society A

Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2016-12-earth-days-longer.html#jCp

Quote from: Baby Thork
Round earth theory is stupid.
So what holds the sun, moon, planets and stars above your flat earth continually circling around up there with no means of support.
Is it magic?
Are they tethered by an invisible rope to an invisible pole over the North Pole reaching to Polaris?
And what keeps them rotating up there. It cannot be Newton's first law of motion - that would say that they should continue in straight lines.

So I could claim with equal justification that your Flat Earth hypothesis is stupid.
I won't do that because many people seem to sincerely believe it to be so and calling belief in the flat earth stupid would be tantamount to calling those people stupid.
Title: Re: 100% undebunkable
Post by: Tontogary on May 28, 2018, 04:43:26 AM

Actually you need to exert a force any time you want to see a rate of change to anything. Whether that be air slowing down to go away from the equator, speeding up moving towards it, or speeding up as it gets higher in the atmosphere.

So what energy causes the sun to speed up and slow down, and change path all the time then? It must do to have a longer path in winter than the summer in the same time frame. (Ie 24 hours)

And the m,on, what energy is causing that to change direction and speed?
Title: Re: 100% undebunkable
Post by: hexagon on May 28, 2018, 07:55:37 AM
Via k_B * T temperature of gas molecules is equivalent to a certain amount of kinetic energy and therefor a certain velocity. A value of 1m/s or 86400 Km/day at room temperature is a very conservative estimate...

Anyway, the earth and its atmosphere is a closed system, you don't feel it's speed because you, the air and everything else is moving with the same speed with you. You only feel accelerations, but the outward acceleration due to earth's rotation is even at the equator so tiny compared to gravity, that you can measure it, but not feel it.     
Title: Re: 100% undebunkable
Post by: sandokhan on May 28, 2018, 01:09:19 PM
Anyway, the earth and its atmosphere is a closed system, you don't feel it's speed because you, the air and everything else is moving with the same speed with you.

But they do not form a closed system, on the contrary.

"The law of conservation of angular momentum applies to rigid bodies. Not to liquids and not to gases. The reason for this necessity is that imparting a torque to a molecule in a rigid body affects the whole body, which is not the case with the other two states.

Consider the World, without an atmosphere, spinning in a vacuum. If we then wrap a non-moving atmosphere around it, that atmosphere will serve to damp the spin of the World."

The supposed frictional force, inversely proportional to altitude, would have dampened the very rotation of the Earth, from the very start.

The Earth-Atmosphere-Sun system is NOT a closed system, therefore it has not has reached some sort of equilibrium in terms of its angular momentum.

"The World would constantly be losing the energy that it possessed as a result of its rotation, to an atmosphere which would heat up due to this friction and dissipate this extra energy by radiating most of it out into space.

Hence, the interaction of a rotating World with an atmosphere is always going to be a case of losing angular momentum (i.e., angular velocity, since the mass of the World does not change) to the atmosphere, because of friction. Friction generates heat. Heat gets dissipated.
Some of this dissipated heat will leave the World/atmosphere system in the form of radiated energy. The World will slow down and stop."

Let us go to the textbook on atmospheric science.

Conservation of momentum in the atmosphere is a complex process, but basically the earth/ocean/atmosphere system must conserve angular momentum. Angular momentum is transferred from the earth to the atmosphere by the tropical easterlies, where air is rotating faster than the earth and transferred from the atmosphere back to the earth by the westerlies in the mid-latitudes, where the wind is rotating slower than the earth.

"Now, the 'conventional' treatment of our atmosphere is that these molecules interact with one another, such that the angular momentum of the whole is conserved. This is wrong for at least two reasons: There are thermal convection currents within the atmosphere which have a great effect on the air molecules. These convection currents have absolutely nothing to do with angular momentum (these are perhaps the greatest reason why the so-called 'closed system' is invalid). They are due to the incoming heat from the Sun, heating up different  components of the World and its atmosphere at different rates, depending upon composition. These convection currents will act so as to disrupt any alleged angular momentum of our considered molecule. Their effect upon our molecule will be totally overwhelming, compared with any possible transference of angular momentum. ANY 'ANGULAR MOMENTUM' THAT OUR MOLECULE MAY HAVE HAD WILL BE CHANGED BY THE ACTION OF SOMETHING ORIGINATING OUTSIDE OF THE WORLD/ATMOSPHERE SYSTEM.

Once changed, the total angular momentum of the whole atmosphere (if such a thing existed) would be changed. If it has changed, then it is not conserved. I hope that you will all see that there is no way that total angular momentum can be conserved and that we are not talking of any form of theoretical 'closed system.' The second reason is closely tied to the first. As I have said many times now, angular momentum is an attribute of rigid bodies. That is how it is DEFINED. Note that ALL the particles within a rigid body have the SAME angular frequency about a COMMON axis of rotation, irrespective of how far each of them is from that axis. Angular momentum does not apply to gases, nor, in general, to fluids."


Friction can only be invoked for the first FEW HUNDREDS OF METERS above the ground: modern science cannot explain how the rest of the layers of the atmosphere travel at the same speed, since a LATERAL GRAVITATIONAL FORCE, called the restoring force paradox, would be needed (you cannot make reference to the Coriolis force, since that phenomenon takes place on a flat earth as well, the rotation of the ether field):

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg819201#msg819201

Title: Re: 100% undebunkable
Post by: Dr David Thork on May 28, 2018, 02:03:26 PM
Yeah, air doesn't work like that.

From aerodynamics ...

Consider the velocity of air at the boundary layer of an aerofoil.

I'll use NASA as a source as you all have a boner for them.
(https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/airplane/Images/boundlay.gif)

Note at the point where the air meets the wing ... or in our case the surface of earth, the RELATIVE velocity is zero. So at the equator the air is 1040mph at the surface. And as you rise away from the surface, that air slips (a shear force). The velocity changes as the air isn't solid. This slipping gives rise to phenomenon known as 'skin friction drag'.

(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/sqxI2Dc_UpI/hqdefault.jpg)

This is a force in the opposite direction to the spin of the earth. The result is a huge drag force acting on the earth at its surface all the time. What powers the earth to overcome this drag? An aircraft has an engine.

Before you rush in and claim the round earth doesn't have a boundary layer ... read this
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/earth-and-planetary-sciences/boundary-layer-flow

You'll note, no explanation as to how all this drag is overcome each day, nor any explanation as to why we aren't electrocuted in storms all day every day.

So that's the vertical drag that needs explaining. Now to the horizontal.

This "massive" speed difference 0 to 1040 mph over 6215 miles is only a change in speed of about 1/6 mph for each mile!
You may want to write this off as small, but this north-south movement is so large over the scale of the earth, you gave it a name. Coriolis.

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/69/Coriolis_effect14.png)

A huge drag force! Quintillions of tons of both AIR & WATER, all having to change velocity(1,450,000,000,000,000,000 tons of water alone). What is the power to overcome this huge drag force on earth? What adds power to stop the earth coming to a halt? 6.5 billion years and still spinning! You can't just write this off as imperceptible.
Title: Re: 100% undebunkable
Post by: hexagon on May 28, 2018, 03:14:36 PM
The earth is not like the wing of an airplane moving through a static atmosphere, the atmosphere is moving together with the earth, like the air inside a train. It's not that in the back of the train is all the air and in the front is vacuum...

Of course the coupling between the earth and the atmosphere is not perfectly rigid. And you have many other effects, e.g. due to thermal gradients and so on leading to all sorts of atmospheric effects. But it is rigid enough that we do not feel a permanent storm blowing in our face from one direction.   
Title: Re: 100% undebunkable
Post by: Dr David Thork on May 28, 2018, 03:27:21 PM
Now air and water are rigid? As Tom would say ... "Look out of your window". This is demonstrably false.

You have a rate of change. A change of momentum. That is a loss. What overcomes these huge losses for billions of years?

change of momentum (in kg m/s) = resultant force (in newton, N) × time for which it acts (in s)

I've got my mass (weight of all the water and air on earth) and the distance it moves every day, I have my time (6.5 billion years) ... balance the equation please. Where is the power for this change of momentum coming from? Solve my drag equation.
Title: Re: 100% undebunkable
Post by: sandokhan on May 28, 2018, 03:58:47 PM
the atmosphere is moving together with the earth, like the air inside a train.

The Earth does not have an outer casing. No comparison to a ride on a train can be made at all.

How does the atmosphere rotate along with the Earth, after the few hundreds of meters which involve friction?

Obviously, a lateral gravitational force would be needed to accomplish that.

Here is the catch.

Friction is inversely proportional to altitude.

The new lateral gravitational force MUST BE directly proportional to altitude.

"The field of gravity is such that its strength at a point, s1, within the atmosphere is inversely proportional to (R + h)^2. Such rapid decrease in field strength with altitude helps to ensure that our atmosphere is not compacted into a thin layer at sea level. In contrast, the strength of the supposed new field would be directly proportional to (R + h) and thus increase with altitude."

https://web.archive.org/web/20140903074446/http://www.realityreviewed.com/Restoring%20forces.htm


It is of outmost importance now to comprehend how the Michelson-Gale experiment was faked.

Otherwise, all the RE have to do is to remind everyone here of this formula:

(http://www.conspiracyoflight.com/Michelson-Gale/MangG1.jpg)

A very simple formula.

We have the measured fringe interference, the area of the interferometer, the wavelength of the light, the speed of light: then the angular velocity of the rotation of the Earth can be easily calculated.

This is the argument ALWAYS used in extremis by the RE to save the situation.

And, in the past, there was NOTHING the FE could do about it.

Now, the Michelson-Gale experiment has been debunked thoroughly: it actually recorded the CORIOLIS effect and not the rotational Sagnac, nor the orbital Sagnac.


https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2024144#msg2024144 (ten consecutive messages)
Title: Re: 100% undebunkable
Post by: garygreen on May 28, 2018, 04:33:29 PM
Now air and water are rigid? As Tom would say ... "Look out of your window". This is demonstrably false.

You have a rate of change. A change of momentum. That is a loss. What overcomes these huge losses for billions of years?

change of momentum (in kg m/s) = resultant force (in newton, N) × time for which it acts (in s)

I've got my mass (weight of all the water and air on earth) and the distance it moves every day, I have my time (6.5 billion years) ... balance the equation please. Where is the power for this change of momentum coming from? Solve my drag equation.

you are thinking about the problem incorrectly.  all you're really doing here is asking about the linear momentum of one component of a rotating mass with constant angular momentum.  that's unnecessary since there are no external forces applying a (significant) torque to the earth.

http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/I_18.html
Quote
Now the total force on all the particles is the same as the external force. Why? Although there are all kinds of forces on the particles because of the strings, the wigglings, the pullings and pushings, and the atomic forces, and who knows what, and we have to add all these together, we are rescued by Newton’s Third Law. Between any two particles the action and reaction are equal, so that when we add all the equations together, if any two particles have forces between them it cancels out in the sum; therefore the net result is only those forces which arise from other particles which are not included in whatever object we decide to sum over.

fwiw the force that changes the linear momentum of particles in the atmosphere (and stuff on earth) is gravity.
Title: Re: 100% undebunkable
Post by: Dr David Thork on May 28, 2018, 04:41:42 PM
Which is a very nice theory without friction, heating, electrostatic build up and of course the change of velocities ... this explanation invokes perpetual motion ... a motion RE advocates for a perpetually turning earth. That doesn't fit with demonstrable physics.

You can't just keep balancing forces one against the other and claim there are no losses. The universe doesn't work like that.
Title: Re: 100% undebunkable
Post by: Bobby Shafto on May 28, 2018, 04:46:08 PM
Earth's rotational rate is slowing.
Title: Re: 100% undebunkable
Post by: Dr David Thork on May 28, 2018, 04:48:34 PM
Earth's rotational rate is slowing.
Unfortunately that is "explained away" by yet more terrible theorising regarding tidal locking of the moon.

I still have an issue here to be solved with a ball turning in syrup forever and ever.
Title: Re: 100% undebunkable
Post by: Bobby Shafto on May 28, 2018, 04:58:36 PM
However it's explained, it's not true that the earth's rotation is unchanging or that it will continue "forever and ever."
Title: Re: 100% undebunkable
Post by: Dr David Thork on May 28, 2018, 05:27:08 PM
Well its been spinning for 6.5 billion years. That's as good as forever.

Take an apple and place it in a swimming pool. Then spin it. See how long your apple spins. Then imagine that apple spinning for 6.5 billion years. The water near the surface of your apple spins with your apple. But by the time you get a metre away from the apple, you aren't moving any water. That apple has a boundary layer. One nowhere near the depth of the ocean or the height of the atmosphere.

I want to see an apple spin in a swimming pool for just 24 hours. I'll then let you off the other 6.5 billion years.
Title: Re: 100% undebunkable
Post by: sandokhan on May 28, 2018, 05:29:08 PM
Earth's rotational rate is slowing.

The Earth's annual precession is accelerating:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1776082#msg1776082 (two consecutive messages)

(https://image.ibb.co/i6AbDn/pre1.jpg)

The barometric pressure paradox defies the moon's tidal locking mechanism:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1707294#msg1707294

Title: Re: 100% undebunkable
Post by: Bobby Shafto on May 28, 2018, 05:33:16 PM
Well its been spinning for 6.5 billion years. That's as good as forever.
No it's not. And the angular velocity has not been constant throughout that time.

An apple spinning in a pool is not a good model.
Title: Re: 100% undebunkable
Post by: Dr David Thork on May 28, 2018, 05:41:03 PM
Well its been spinning for 6.5 billion years. That's as good as forever.
No it's not. And the angular velocity has not been constant throughout that time.
I don't think you comprehend just how long 6.5 billion years is.

And any change to the speed of earth is always equated with tidal locking of the moon, not Coriolis or other atmospheric damping effects. Come on, where's my apple in a swimming pool that never stops spinning?

An apple spinning in a pool is not a good model.
Pick a better model. You guys keep asking FErs to make models. Give me a model for Round Earth to explain constant spinning without adding power. You can't even get a gyroscope in a vacuum to spin for more than a couple of hours without adding more power and those things start off at over 60,000 rpm. You won't be able to give me a model ... nothing because it breaks the laws of thermodynamics. Nothing can spin forever without losses. The theory of a spinning earth can only be that. There is no way you could possibly demonstrate it and have even remotely similar results using any set up you like when the laws of physics are still applied. A rotating earth is nothing more than a thought experiment, parroted by the masses as fact.
Title: Re: 100% undebunkable
Post by: Bobby Shafto on May 28, 2018, 05:42:12 PM
Earth's rotational rate is slowing.

The Earth's annual precession is accelerating:

Precession is a different parameter from rate of rotation.
Title: Re: 100% undebunkable
Post by: Dr David Thork on May 28, 2018, 05:44:36 PM
Earth's rotational rate is slowing.

The Earth's annual precession is accelerating:

Precession is a different parameter from rate of rotation.
I didn't even want to get into gyroscopic effects and the losses there ... that's yet another problem you have. Gyroscopes like to maintain direction and changing them requires energy. Gravity from the sun is not energy. The gyroscopic losses would make the earth fall from orbit as it lost speed.

But hey, lets not move the goal posts ... we are looking at spinning, not orbits. Sure, spinning causes gyroscopic effects, but they'll muff up your orbit, not the spin itself.
Title: Re: 100% undebunkable
Post by: Bobby Shafto on May 28, 2018, 05:45:49 PM
I don't think you comprehend just how long 6.5 billion years is.
And I don't think you comprehend how long "forever and ever" is.
Title: Re: 100% undebunkable
Post by: sandokhan on May 28, 2018, 05:48:39 PM
Precession is a different parameter from rate of rotation.


They are directly related through a single equation:

(https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/efdd1146785b3551d4bcdf88097ef672b323e4d4)

ωs is the angular velocity of spin about the spin axis; ωp is the angular velocity of precession)

Title: Re: 100% undebunkable
Post by: Tumeni on May 28, 2018, 05:52:20 PM
You guys keep asking FErs to make models.

In my experience, it's the FEers (on YouTube) who, for instance, can't understand why the shadow on a lunar eclipse should be on the top of the Moon, why a solar eclipse shadow moves West to East, etc etc who are the ones who ask me and others to "make them a model".

Once it's made, they either don't understand it or take issue with some aspect of it which is irrelevant to the point of the model. I persist in explaining to them.  Shortly after that, they generally block me or delete my comments. 
Title: Re: 100% undebunkable
Post by: Dr David Thork on May 28, 2018, 05:55:57 PM
You guys keep asking FErs to make models.

In my experience, it's the FEers (on YouTube) who, for instance, can't understand why the shadow on a lunar eclipse should be on the top of the Moon, why a solar eclipse shadow moves West to East, etc etc who are the ones who ask me and others to "make them a model".

Once it's made, they either don't understand it or take issue with some aspect of it which is irrelevant to the point of the model. I persist in explaining to them.  Shortly after that, they generally block me or delete my comments. 
This isn't youtube. You come here to get a more in depth debate. And no one is going to block or ban you here for a reasoned rebuttal.

I've posed a problem. A fundamental one. I have had no explanation presented that even touches on plausible. You can either accept that the earth turns on blind faith, you can go and find out exactly what is happening in the RE model and then explain it (proof you understand it) ... or you can come to the conclusion that it probably doesn't turn.

Is the world turning? It doesn't get more existential than that.
Title: Re: 100% undebunkable
Post by: Bobby Shafto on May 28, 2018, 06:06:35 PM
I didn't even want to get into gyroscopic effects and the losses there ...
...But hey, lets not move the goal posts ... we are looking at spinning, not orbits. Sure, spinning causes gyroscopic effects, but they'll muff up your orbit, not the spin itself.
Agreed. Introducing change in precession in response to change in angular velocity was sandokhan's goal post movement. Not mine.
Title: Re: 100% undebunkable
Post by: Dr David Thork on May 28, 2018, 06:07:16 PM
I didn't even want to get into gyroscopic effects and the losses there ...
...But hey, lets not move the goal posts ... we are looking at spinning, not orbits. Sure, spinning causes gyroscopic effects, but they'll muff up your orbit, not the spin itself.
Agreed. Introducing change in precession in response to change in angular velocity was sandokhan's goal post movement. Not mine.
It is valid, but one thing at a time.

So ... apple in a swimming pool. Can you improve upon that?
Title: Re: 100% undebunkable
Post by: Bobby Shafto on May 28, 2018, 06:14:31 PM
Precession is a different parameter from rate of rotation.


They are directly related through a single equation:

(https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/efdd1146785b3551d4bcdf88097ef672b323e4d4)

ωs is the angular velocity of spin about the spin axis; ωp is the angular velocity of precession)

Precession angular velocity is inversely proportional to the angular velocity of spin.

So, as speed of spin slows, precession...does what?

What was the point of responding to my post about the rate of earth's rotation slowing by saying that the annual precession [rate] is accelerating?
Title: Re: 100% undebunkable
Post by: garygreen on May 28, 2018, 06:18:54 PM
You can't just keep balancing forces one against the other and claim there are no losses. The universe doesn't work like that.

the universe works exactly like that.  conservation laws are fundamental.  ask a real engineer.

angular momentum is a conserved quantity.  regardless of the internal forces, a spinning object will spin forever unless energy is added or subtracted from the object.

Take an apple and place it in a swimming pool. Then spin it. See how long your apple spins. Then imagine that apple spinning for 6.5 billion years. The water near the surface of your apple spins with your apple. But by the time you get a metre away from the apple, you aren't moving any water. That apple has a boundary layer. One nowhere near the depth of the ocean or the height of the atmosphere.

I want to see an apple spin in a swimming pool for just 24 hours. I'll then let you off the other 6.5 billion years.

this analogy is asinine.  hint: the apple isn't isolated. 

I've posed a problem. A fundamental one. I have had no explanation presented that even touches on plausible. You can either accept that the earth turns on blind faith, you can go and find out exactly what is happening in the RE model and then explain it (proof you understand it)

all you've demonstrated is that you've never heard of angular momentum before.
Title: Re: 100% undebunkable
Post by: Bobby Shafto on May 28, 2018, 06:20:24 PM
So ... apple in a swimming pool. Can you improve upon that?
Venus?
Title: Re: 100% undebunkable
Post by: Dr David Thork on May 28, 2018, 06:25:14 PM
all you've demonstrated is that you've never heard of angular momentum before.
All you are demonstrating is that you've never heard of thermodynamics and you seem to think angular momentum = perpetual motion. A lossless phenomenon because you used a science phrase.
Title: Re: 100% undebunkable
Post by: Curious Squirrel on May 28, 2018, 06:25:35 PM
I admit, not well versed in this particular subject and what not, but the surface level argument that comes up for this question is related to everything on/in Earth having angular momentum since it's formation. Essentially meaning it's inertia keeping things spinning (I believe). So, to go to your apple request, what is the mass of the apple, compared to Earth? Earth is listed at 5.972x10^24 kg. An apple is approximately 0.1 kg. I know this isn't very exact (an honestly I could be way off in this being related, so please correct me if so) but how long does the apple need to spin to simulate the time the Earth has spun at a relative time for it's mass difference?

The Earth has spun for 4.5 billion years, with a mass of 5.972e24
The apple needs to spin for x years with a mass of 0.1 kg.

4.5e8/x=5.972e24/0.1 (I'm like, 60% sure this is right, so please correct me if I'm wrong.)
4.5e8/x=5.972e25
4.5e8=5.972e25*x
4.5e8/5.972e25=x
x=7.535e-20 years. Or approx. a very very small amount of time.

Presuming this is even close to correct, that these things can even be compared like this (again, I'm a bit fuzzy on much of this, expounding on why I can't do this appreciated) and I didn't just butcher something with the math, if we want to discuss your apple we only have to make it spin for a period of time practically imperceptible to us. At least as far as the inherent inertia of the mass of the Earth is concerned. I think.
EDIT: Updated with correct Earth age. Note this only made the relative time period smaller
Title: Re: 100% undebunkable
Post by: Bobby Shafto on May 28, 2018, 06:29:38 PM
The Earth has spun for 6.5 billion years, with a mass of 5.972e24
The apple needs to spin for x years with a mass of 0.1 kg.
There's just too much wrong with the apple in a pool analogy to serve as a model for earth.

What's the water in the pool supposed to be? Earth's atmosphere? The aether?
Title: Re: 100% undebunkable
Post by: nickrulercreator on May 28, 2018, 08:04:29 PM
Earth is 4.5 billion years old, not 6.5: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_Earth

(not trying to derail, just trying to make sure that equations and discussion is correct.)
Title: Re: 100% undebunkable
Post by: Dr David Thork on May 28, 2018, 08:07:08 PM
The Earth has spun for 6.5 billion years, with a mass of 5.972e24
The apple needs to spin for x years with a mass of 0.1 kg.
There's just too much wrong with the apple in a pool analogy to serve as a model for earth.

What's the water in the pool supposed to be? Earth's atmosphere? The aether?
A solid spinning body in a fluid medium.
Title: Re: 100% undebunkable
Post by: Dr David Thork on May 28, 2018, 08:08:39 PM
Earth is 4.5 billion years old, not 6.5: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_Earth

(not trying to derail, just trying to make sure that equations and discussion is correct.)
Sorry, brain fart. I think the world is 4000 years old, so remembering your interpretation is like double the info for every earth statistic you can imagine.  ;)
Title: Re: 100% undebunkable
Post by: Bobby Shafto on May 28, 2018, 08:23:29 PM
A solid spinning body in a fluid medium.
Just say "the atmosphere" is that's the answer.

Your analogy of an apple spun in a pool is that the water is to the apple as the atmosphere is to earth?
Title: Re: 100% undebunkable
Post by: Dr David Thork on May 28, 2018, 08:27:40 PM
Fluids are fluids, and also don't forget you also have the sea ... Coriolis effects both, right?

Now I could have said cannonball, but those don't float and there would be additional friction from a fixed floor where the ball rested on the bottom of the pool.

I think an apple in a pool is very fair. This is fluid dynamics. I can equate different viscosity, temperatures and densities using non-dimension coefficients like the Reynolds number. As long as I realise that all Newtonian fluids behave roughly the same (air and water included), I can swap them about at will and expect similar results. Ie drag.
Title: Re: 100% undebunkable
Post by: garygreen on May 28, 2018, 08:32:22 PM
All you are demonstrating is that you've never heard of thermodynamics and you seem to think angular momentum = perpetual motion. A lossless phenomenon because you used a science phrase.

nothing in thermodynamics says that an object can't spin for a billion years.  also nothing that i'm describing has anything to do with perpetual motion.  i'm describing a conservation law.  you cannot change the angular momentum of a system endogenously.  an external force must be applied.

A solid spinning body in a fluid medium.

your analogy is terrible.  your analogy has the earth spinning in a stationary fluid in a tank that is fixed to something (the pool is resting on the ground and not hovering in the air, i presume).  none of that is applicable to the earth and/or its atmosphere.

the earth's atmosphere spins with the earth.  it is not fixed inside a larger container.  the whole system is spinning.
Title: Re: 100% undebunkable
Post by: Bobby Shafto on May 28, 2018, 09:05:47 PM
I think an apple in a pool is very fair.
That's probably because you think of the earth as spinning in a fluid medium. But that's not the analogy of the earth and its atmosphere (or it's seas).
Title: Re: 100% undebunkable
Post by: AATW on May 28, 2018, 10:13:26 PM
Isn't the earth an apple in a vacuum with a very thin layer (compared with the size of the apple) of gas (not liquid, far less dense) around it?
Not much would stop that spinning for a very long time, and the earth is a lot more massive than an apple of course and thus has a lot more momentum.

To be honest I'm not that well versed in all this, I'm not clear why the atmosphere spins with the earth. I guess it's because the gases that make it up come from things like plants and animals or are ejected from various geological activities. All those things are stationary with respect to the spinning earth so the gases will be too?
I made that up a bit. As I said, not really my area of expertise.

But if this is thought ridiculous then you need to have some explanation as to how the sun and planets and stars hover above the disc of the earth, how a near, small sun is powered and what causes it to move in its orbit and keep on changing orbit to cause the seasons. I've seen no FE explanation for any of this so to write off the RE model because you don't understand it (as I said, I don't understand everything about it too) while simultaneously believing in a FE model which has no explanation for some of the things I've mentioned (not that I've seen, anyway) seems a bit odd.

PS: All that said, Thork is about a million times better to debate with than Tom, he seems a lot more honest and willing to make intelligent arguments.
Title: Re: 100% undebunkable
Post by: Dr David Thork on May 28, 2018, 11:06:24 PM
nothing in thermodynamics says that an object can't spin for a billion years. 
Oooooooh, you want to stand by that?


To be honest I'm not that well versed in all this,
Perfect, we can learn together.

I made that up a bit.
Hardly the first Round Earther I've met who has done that. Probably one of the first who was honest about it though. 

But if this is thought ridiculous then you need to have some explanation as to how the sun and planets and stars hover above the disc of the earth, how a near, small sun is powered and what causes it to move in its orbit and keep on changing orbit to cause the seasons.
Whoa whoa whoa. I have an explanation and it is celestial gearing, but that is a whole off-topic thread of its own. This is an investigation of whether earth spins or not. Let's keep it that simple.

PS: All that said, Thork is about a million times better to debate with than Tom, he seems a lot more honest and willing to make intelligent arguments.
You aren't allowed to have favourites here. We are all God's children.
Title: Re: 100% undebunkable
Post by: garygreen on May 28, 2018, 11:12:18 PM
nothing in thermodynamics says that an object can't spin for a billion years. 
Oooooooh, you want to stand by that?

yes.

To be honest I'm not that well versed in all this, I'm not clear why the atmosphere spins with the earth.

basically gravity plus friction plus pressure.

this isn't a perfect analogy, but it'll work: imagine a sort of converse scenario where we have a stationary spherical shell with a water inside.  now imagine that we spin the shell at a constant rate.  friction causes water molecules at the water/shell interface to rotate along with the shell, and those in turn act on other water molecules, so on and so on until the water in the shell is rotating at the same rate as the shell itself.  if you stop acting on the sphere (and set it out in space or something), then it will keep on rotating in this way forever.

but let's imagine that thork is right for a moment and ask what would happen if, after we stopped acting on the sphere, some internal force causes the water inside the shell to slow down a little bit.  since the total angular momentum is constant, then the shell rotation must speed up.  now we have a fast-moving shell around slower-moving water, and we already know what happens in that situation: friction causes the water to rotate faster.  the shell slows down (constant angular momentum again) until the angular speeds equalize and there is no more friction.

so it's not just that the atmosphere shouldn't slow the earth; it's that their angular speeds actually want to equilibrate.

Title: Re: 100% undebunkable
Post by: Curious Squirrel on May 29, 2018, 04:01:51 AM
But if this is thought ridiculous then you need to have some explanation as to how the sun and planets and stars hover above the disc of the earth, how a near, small sun is powered and what causes it to move in its orbit and keep on changing orbit to cause the seasons.
Whoa whoa whoa. I have an explanation and it is celestial gearing, but that is a whole off-topic thread of its own. This is an investigation of whether earth spins or not. Let's keep it that simple.
As noted this is a touch off-topic, but I would love to either be directed to a thread that goes more in depth, or for you to make one discussing this. Information on this is woefully lacking in the wiki, and I've yet to come across someone who has gone much in depth on it.

I know very little about this subject more in depth than I've already put forth, but it's been interesting so far.
Title: Re: 100% undebunkable
Post by: rabinoz on May 29, 2018, 04:24:46 AM
Before you rush in and claim the round earth doesn't have a boundary layer ... read this
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/earth-and-planetary-sciences/boundary-layer-flow

You'll note, no explanation as to how all this drag is overcome each day, nor any explanation as to why we aren't electrocuted in storms all day every day.
So that's the vertical drag that needs explaining.
Why is there any "vertical drag"? There is nothing outside the atmosphere to slow it down other that a trace of "solar wind".

Quote from: Baby Thork
Now to the horizontal.

This "massive" speed difference 0 to 1040 mph over 6215 miles is only a change in speed of about 1/6 mph for each mile!
You may want to write this off as small, but this north-south movement is so large over the scale of the earth, you gave it a name. Coriolis.

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/69/Coriolis_effect14.png)

A huge drag force! Quintillions of tons of both AIR & WATER, all having to change velocity(1,450,000,000,000,000,000 tons of water alone).
So the air has a mass of 5.145×1018 kg, the water has a mass of 1.4×1021 and the earth has a mass of 5.97×1024 kg.
Throwing big numbers around doesn't mean a thing.
These "Quintillions of tons of both AIR & WATER" do not automatically translate to any "drag force" on the earth. They are all within the earth/atmosphere system.

Quote from: Baby Thork
What is the power to overcome this huge drag force on earth? What adds power to stop the earth coming to a halt? 6.5 billion years and still spinning! You can't just write this off as imperceptible.
None of that is taking angular momentum out of the earth/atmosphere system. The only thing thing that could do that is some outside torque and tidal forces caused by the moon do slow the earth down a little..
The general sea-level equator-to-pole movement of air and water is due to differential heating from the sun. The change in direction due to Coriolis does not require energy.

So no outside "power to stop the earth coming to a halt" is needed.

Then you ask:
Well its been spinning for 6.5 billion years. That's as good as forever.

Take an apple and place it in a swimming pool. Then spin it. See how long your apple spins. Then imagine that apple spinning for 6.5 billion years. The water near the surface of your apple spins with your apple. But by the time you get a metre away from the apple, you aren't moving any water. That apple has a boundary layer. One nowhere near the depth of the ocean or the height of the atmosphere.

I want to see an apple spin in a swimming pool for just 24 hours. I'll then let you off the other 6.5 billion years.
The earth is not spinning in water or even in air. It is spinning in an almost perfect vacuum.
"At the orbit of the Earth, the solar wind has an average density ofabout 6 ions/cm3." That's very close to being a "perfect vacuum".
Title: Re: 100% undebunkable
Post by: Tontogary on May 29, 2018, 07:21:22 AM
Well its been spinning for 6.5 billion years. That's as good as forever.

Take an apple and place it in a swimming pool. Then spin it. See how long your apple spins. Then imagine that apple spinning for 6.5 billion years. The water near the surface of your apple spins with your apple. But by the time you get a metre away from the apple, you aren't moving any water. That apple has a boundary layer. One nowhere near the depth of the ocean or the height of the atmosphere.

I want to see an apple spin in a swimming pool for just 24 hours. I'll then let you off the other 6.5 billion years.

Explain how the sun keeps moving for that amount of time then?

Or even better, how it accelerates, slows down, moves direction and reverses direction each year. Where is all that energy coming from? And the stars moving? How is that happening? What is moving them?
Title: Re: 100% undebunkable
Post by: hexagon on May 29, 2018, 08:39:57 AM
The whole discussion shows a fundamental problem in how to address the problem. If you see the earth spinning inside a medium (the atmosphere), than indeed you would have a problem due to energy loss by friction at the interface between the earth surface and the medium.

But this is simply not correct. You have to look at whole earth-atmosphere system spinning together in the vacuum of the space.

Of course, there are a lot of complications to this picture, and you can discuss about this endlessly, but that is the very basic picture you have to start with.
Title: Re: 100% undebunkable
Post by: sandokhan on May 29, 2018, 09:05:58 AM
You have to look at whole earth-atmosphere system spinning together in the vacuum of the space.

The missing orbital Sagnac effect together with the missing solar gravitational potential effect = the hypotheses of the Ruderfer experiment are fulfilled:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1846721#msg1846721

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1846706#msg1846706

This is why relativists are abandoning Einstein's relativity and are embracing the MLET (modified Lorentz ether theory).

There is no vacuum: the Ruderfer experiment proves, mathematically and experimentally, the existence of the field of ether between the GPS satellites and the Earth.


http://qem.ee.nthu.edu.tw/f1b.pdf

This is an IOP article.

The author recognizes the earth's orbital Sagnac is missing whereas the earth's rotational Sagnac is not.

In order to explain the missing orbital Sagnac effect, other than accepting that the Earth is stationary, the author is forced to accept a local-aether model.

(https://image.ibb.co/mio417/ether1.jpg)

(https://image.ibb.co/mcsa8n/ether1b.jpg)

Even the translational local-aether model cannot be correct, since Michelson and Gale recorded the CORIOLIS EFFECT but not the rotational Sagnac effect.
Title: Re: 100% undebunkable
Post by: hexagon on May 29, 2018, 11:43:39 AM
The paper is crap with no impact on the scientific discussion. The guy published some papers around the time on related topics only cross-referenced by himself. No experimental data, just speculation about effects too small to be measured. Try better...
Title: Re: 100% undebunkable
Post by: sandokhan on May 29, 2018, 12:10:12 PM
Dr. C.C. Su is one of the top experts in the world on electromagnetics:

http://www.ee.nthu.edu.tw/ccsu/

Here is another paper, published by the Bulletin of the American Physics Society, one of the most prestigious journals in the world today.

C.C. Su, "A Local-ether model of propagation of electromagnetic wave," in Bull. Am. Phys. Soc., vol. 45, no. 1, p. 637, Mar. 2000 (Minneapolis, Minnesota).

Here is another paper, published by Dr. Su, on the local-aether model:

Journal of Electromagnetic Waves and Applications:

http://www.ee.nthu.edu.tw/ccsu/qem/f3c.pdf

For the interplanetary propagation, earth’s orbital
motion contributes to the Sagnac effect as well. This local-ether model
has been adopted to account for the Sagnac effect due to earth’s
motions in a wide variety of propagation phenomena, particularly the
global positioning system (GPS), the intercontinental microwave link,
and the interplanetary radar.

The paper is crap with no impact on the scientific discussion.

It was published and peer-reviewed by the IOP, considered to be the highest standard of RE science:

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1209/epl/i2001-00502-1


M. Ruderfer proved in 1960 the FIRST NULL RESULT IN ETHER DRIFT THEORY.

The fact that the both the orbital Sagnac effect and the solar gravitational potential are missing from the GPS satellites means that its hypotheses are being fulfilled.

This is the main reason why relativists are giving up on Einstein's relativity.

They have to explain the missing orbital Sagnac effect.

They have two choices: either accept the Earth is stationary, or embrace the Lorentz ether theory; obviously they chose the latter.

Many other relativists have switched to the Non-time Orthogonal relativity theory, where the speed of light is no longer constant, but variable.

Title: Re: 100% undebunkable
Post by: Tontogary on May 29, 2018, 12:46:31 PM
I have not read most of the above, but it seems like there is missing the “solar gravitational potential” from GPS satellites.

Is me or is this ironic that the existence of GPS satellites is being used to prove that the earth is flat, where GPS satellites could then not exist?? Or am i missing something?
Title: Re: 100% undebunkable
Post by: hexagon on May 29, 2018, 12:53:24 PM
For your famous author Web of Sciences can only find 7 publications, all published between 2001 and 2006. No co-authors and only 3 citations beside self-citations. No publications in high-impact journals. Nothing... Any of our PhD students has a better reputation then this guy...
Title: Re: 100% undebunkable
Post by: Bobby Shafto on May 29, 2018, 01:17:35 PM
I have not read most of the above, but it seems like there is missing the “solar gravitational potential” from GPS satellites.

Is me or is this ironic that the existence of GPS satellites is being used to prove that the earth is flat, where GPS satellites could then not exist?? Or am i missing something?
If you're missing something, I'm missing it too.

For Thork, the water in the pool is the atmosphere. For sandokahn, the pool water is the aether.

The latter WOULD be a case of the earth spinning in a fluid medium. But now, we need to be convinced that this aether medium must exist in a round earth model so as to understand the argument for why it doesn't exist, and the earth doesn't spin within it.

I think what we're missing, Tontogary, is that sandokahn wants us to recognize an enigma about the motion of earth in an orbiting/rotating round earth model that is confronting the scientific community that can only be answered by abandoning that model for a stationary flat earth model.  In other words, the round earth with its supposed GPS satellites is internally inconsistent, and even prominent scientists like Dr. Su recognize it and are trying to answer the enigma.

Title: Re: 100% undebunkable
Post by: hexagon on May 29, 2018, 01:52:02 PM


I think what we're missing, Tontogary, is that sandokahn wants us to recognize an enigma about the motion of earth in an orbiting/rotating round earth model that is confronting the scientific community that can only be answered by abandoning that model for a stationary flat earth model.  In other words, the round earth with its supposed GPS satellites is internally inconsistent, and even prominent scientists like Dr. Su recognize it and are trying to answer the enigma.

Don't be mislead, this "Dr. Su" is not a prominent scientist. This guy has no credibility in this field. There is also no enigma, that puzzles the scientific community. In his papers (not recognized by any scientist) he speculates about effects, beyond the measurement limit that would maybe lead to some discussion. This nothing worth to discuss about.
Title: Re: 100% undebunkable
Post by: Rowbotham Is Your God on June 01, 2018, 09:35:04 PM


I think what we're missing, Tontogary, is that sandokahn wants us to recognize an enigma about the motion of earth in an orbiting/rotating round earth model that is confronting the scientific community that can only be answered by abandoning that model for a stationary flat earth model.  In other words, the round earth with its supposed GPS satellites is internally inconsistent, and even prominent scientists like Dr. Su recognize it and are trying to answer the enigma.

Don't be mislead, this "Dr. Su" is not a prominent scientist. This guy has no credibility in this field. There is also no enigma, that puzzles the scientific community. In his papers (not recognized by any scientist) he speculates about effects, beyond the measurement limit that would maybe lead to some discussion. This nothing worth to discuss about.

In terms of not being a prominent scientist, Samuel Rowbotham has no significance in the scientific field. FEr's worship his book, but he has no credibility or status in the scientific field. If you are trying to debunk the greatest conspiracy of all time, at least have some significance towards your name.
Title: Re: 100% undebunkable
Post by: I am Seeker of Truth on June 03, 2018, 05:45:34 AM
Earth is moving?

Interesting.

So, at the surface the air must be moving with the earth then at 1040mph ... at the equator. As I move north and south, that air needs to decelerate to a full stop (well but for what must be a huge cyclone at the poles). Also as I travel up into the atmosphere, the air needs to accelerate to get round this bigger circumference. The air, according to your theory must be changing velocity to match location imperceptibly all the time else I would feel that wind rush.

Now, knowing what I know about bodies of air rubbing against each other, why am I not being hit by lightning every 2 seconds as all that shear force generates static electricity?
And with this huge amount of energy transfer to constantly speed the air up or it slow down to keep it travelling the same speed as earth everywhere, regardless of winds, altitude, terrain and of course thermal heating to raise pockets of air, what powers that?
I could equally apply the sea to this same problem? What speeds the sea up as currents go towards the equator? From zero at the poles to over 1000 mph at the equator?
And surely this required power would act as a massive brake on the earth? Constant damping. Forever slowing it down very rapidly (consider the weight of all the air and all the water.)
The earth is not tidally locked. It spins ... at a more or less constant speed with no extra energy being added in to maintain spinning.

Or is the earth a perpetual motion machine?

Round earth theory is stupid.

Why would the air have to "decelerate to a full stop" when moving north or south?
Title: Re: 100% undebunkable
Post by: Dr David Thork on June 03, 2018, 03:53:59 PM
Why would the air have to "decelerate to a full stop" when moving north or south?
It would have to change velocity to match the spin speed at whatever circumference. That is a change of momentum. You need to add energy into a system to achieve that ... Newton's 1st law of motion.
Title: Re: 100% undebunkable
Post by: Tumeni on June 03, 2018, 04:05:58 PM
Why would the air have to "decelerate to a full stop" when moving north or south?
It would have to change velocity to match the spin speed at whatever circumference. That is a change of momentum. You need to add energy into a system to achieve that ... Newton's 1st law of motion.

...but why would it need to stop? And where would it stop?
Title: Re: 100% undebunkable
Post by: Dr David Thork on June 03, 2018, 04:09:38 PM
Why would the air have to "decelerate to a full stop" when moving north or south?
It would have to change velocity to match the spin speed at whatever circumference. That is a change of momentum. You need to add energy into a system to achieve that ... Newton's 1st law of motion.

...but why would it need to stop? And where would it stop?
At the North or South Pole, you'd have to be at velocity zero, with respect to earth's spin. So the speed varies from a max of 1040mph to a min of 0 in order for the air to keep up with the surface of the earth as it spins.
Title: Re: 100% undebunkable
Post by: Round Eyes on June 03, 2018, 04:37:28 PM
Why would the air have to "decelerate to a full stop" when moving north or south?
It would have to change velocity to match the spin speed at whatever circumference. That is a change of momentum. You need to add energy into a system to achieve that ... Newton's 1st law of motion.

...but why would it need to stop? And where would it stop?
At the North or South Pole, you'd have to be at velocity zero, with respect to earth's spin. So the speed varies from a max of 1040mph to a min of 0 in order for the air to keep up with the surface of the earth as it spins.

Do you believe that there are planets in our solar system?  if so, we can observe that those planets are spinning and that their rotations are not slowing.  why is the earth different, they all have atmospheres as well, many more substantial than our own?   For example you can measure the rotational speed of Jupiter by measuring how often the red spot takes to make a revolution, etc.
Title: Re: 100% undebunkable
Post by: Dr David Thork on June 03, 2018, 04:42:27 PM
Why would the air have to "decelerate to a full stop" when moving north or south?
It would have to change velocity to match the spin speed at whatever circumference. That is a change of momentum. You need to add energy into a system to achieve that ... Newton's 1st law of motion.

...but why would it need to stop? And where would it stop?
At the North or South Pole, you'd have to be at velocity zero, with respect to earth's spin. So the speed varies from a max of 1040mph to a min of 0 in order for the air to keep up with the surface of the earth as it spins.

Do you believe that there are planets in our solar system?  if so, we can observe that those planets are spinning and that their rotations are not slowing.  why is the earth different, they all have atmospheres as well, many more substantial than our own?   For example you can measure the rotational speed of Jupiter by measuring how often the red spot takes to make a revolution, etc.
Sure, there are planets. The earth is not a planet. Planet comes from the Greek meaning wandering star.

Why is the earth special? Well that is a 'what is the meaning of life' type question. There is no hard answer. But the earth is definitely special.

It is the only place in the whole universe we have observed complex life. It is unlike the little whirling balls in the sky. Why do none of those have life? Of the billions and billions of planets out there, not a radio signal, not a visit from anyone, absolute silence. One might hypothesise that a flat earth with a protective firmament is a prerequisite for life. And that's why earth is special and the only place we find life.
Title: Re: 100% undebunkable
Post by: I am Seeker of Truth on June 03, 2018, 07:27:01 PM
Why would the air have to "decelerate to a full stop" when moving north or south?
It would have to change velocity to match the spin speed at whatever circumference. That is a change of momentum. You need to add energy into a system to achieve that ... Newton's 1st law of motion.

You said "to a full stop" but now you talk of a change in velocity. Which is it?
Title: Re: 100% undebunkable
Post by: Dr David Thork on June 03, 2018, 08:01:21 PM
Why would the air have to "decelerate to a full stop" when moving north or south?
It would have to change velocity to match the spin speed at whatever circumference. That is a change of momentum. You need to add energy into a system to achieve that ... Newton's 1st law of motion.

You said "to a full stop" but now you talk of a change in velocity. Which is it?
Is this difficult for you?

The earth spins at 1037mph at the equator. 10 degrees off the equator it has slowed to 1021mph.

Below is a nice little list for you.

  0 degrees: 1,037.5646 mph (1,669.8 km/h)
10 degrees: 1,021.7837 mph (1,644.4 km/h)
20 degrees: 974.9747 mph (1,569.1 km/h)
30 degrees: 898.54154 mph (1,446.1 km/h)
40 degrees: 794.80665 mph (1,279.1 km/h)
50 degrees: 666.92197 mph (1,073.3 km/h)
60 degrees: 518.7732 mph (834.9 km/h)
70 degrees: 354.86177 mph (571.1 km/h)
80 degrees: 180.16804 mph (289.95 km/h)
90 degrees: 0 mph (0 km/h)

Because you seem unable to understand the simplest things I say, below is a childrens guide, complete with a little formula so you can work it out yourself.

https://www.thoughtco.com/speed-of-the-earth-1435093

As you can see, the velocity changes as you move towards and away from the equator and if you get to the poles, .... a full stop.
Title: Re: 100% undebunkable
Post by: AATW on June 03, 2018, 08:18:15 PM
Why is the earth special? Well that is a 'what is the meaning of life' type question. There is no hard answer. But the earth is definitely special.

It is the only place in the whole universe we have observed complex life. It is unlike the little whirling balls in the sky. Why do none of those have life? Of the billions and billions of planets out there, not a radio signal, not a visit from anyone, absolute silence. One might hypothesise that a flat earth with a protective firmament is a prerequisite for life. And that's why earth is special and the only place we find life.

The universe could be teeming with life but given that the closest star to earth, Proxima Centuri, is 4 light years away, any signal would take 4 years to get there and I don't know whether any of the signals emanating from earth are powerful enough to reach it and still be detectable. And that's just the nearest star. To quote Douglas Adams:

Quote
Space is big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly hugely mindbogglingly big it is. I mean you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist's, but that's just peanuts to space.

So...there may well be life out there, it's just too far away for it to visit us or contact us. Maybe. Or maybe other civilisations did rise and fall but a billion years ago, or maybe microbes are as we speak evolving on some distant planet and in a billion years there will be intelligent life there and we'll have long since killed ourselves in a nuclear war or something.

Fact is, we don't know. What we do know is in our own solar system there are 8 planets and only one of them has intelligent (kinda) life on. From our understanding of how the chemistry of life works we know that it requires liquid water (well, the only form of life we know about does, but we only have one planet's life forms to go on). None of the other planets in our solar system have liquid water so far as we know, so no life. But we are really only just scratching the surface when it comes to exploring even them, we sent a few probes to Mars and Venus, other craft have done fly-bys of other planets and moons but its only in the last 60 years at most we've had the technology to do this. Exoplanets are only just being discovered.

One of the things science has done particularly over the last couple of hundred years is show us our true place in the universe. And that is...
We live on a pretty unremarkable planet
Circling a pretty unremarkable star
In a pretty unremarkable galaxy.

There is nothing scientifically to think there is anything special about the earth. There could be way more intelligent life than us a billion light years away and we'd never know.
If you want to feel special look to philosophy and religion, not science.
Title: Re: 100% undebunkable
Post by: Tumeni on June 03, 2018, 08:21:52 PM
The earth spins at 1037mph at the equator. 10 degrees off the equator it has slowed to 1021mph.

No. It 'spins' at one revolution per day, approximately. The linear speed of a point on the surface at the equator is 1037mph

Below is a nice little list for you.

  0 degrees: 1,037.5646 mph (1,669.8 km/h)
10 degrees: 1,021.7837 mph (1,644.4 km/h)
...
90 degrees: 0 mph (0 km/h)

As you can see, the velocity changes as you move towards and away from the equator and if you get to the poles, .... a full stop.

Yes, but you've switched from talking about the air in the atmosphere to the speed of points on the surface - and whilst the atmosphere in general moves with the Earth, it's still subject to localised air currents and wind generation, largely due to the rise and fall of hot and cold air, and the interaction of same with the coriolis effect.
Title: Re: 100% undebunkable
Post by: Round Eyes on June 03, 2018, 10:10:03 PM
Why would the air have to "decelerate to a full stop" when moving north or south?
It would have to change velocity to match the spin speed at whatever circumference. That is a change of momentum. You need to add energy into a system to achieve that ... Newton's 1st law of motion.

...but why would it need to stop? And where would it stop?
At the North or South Pole, you'd have to be at velocity zero, with respect to earth's spin. So the speed varies from a max of 1040mph to a min of 0 in order for the air to keep up with the surface of the earth as it spins.

Do you believe that there are planets in our solar system?  if so, we can observe that those planets are spinning and that their rotations are not slowing.  why is the earth different, they all have atmospheres as well, many more substantial than our own?   For example you can measure the rotational speed of Jupiter by measuring how often the red spot takes to make a revolution, etc.
Sure, there are planets. The earth is not a planet. Planet comes from the Greek meaning wandering star.

Why is the earth special? Well that is a 'what is the meaning of life' type question. There is no hard answer. But the earth is definitely special.

It is the only place in the whole universe we have observed complex life. It is unlike the little whirling balls in the sky. Why do none of those have life? Of the billions and billions of planets out there, not a radio signal, not a visit from anyone, absolute silence. One might hypothesise that a flat earth with a protective firmament is a prerequisite for life. And that's why earth is special and the only place we find life.

That's fair enough, thanks for the thought out reply.
Title: Re: 100% undebunkable
Post by: rabinoz on June 05, 2018, 10:07:17 PM
Why would the air have to "decelerate to a full stop" when moving north or south?
It would have to change velocity to match the spin speed at whatever circumference. That is a change of momentum. You need to add energy into a system to achieve that ... Newton's 1st law of motion.

...but why would it need to stop? And where would it stop?
At the North or South Pole, you'd have to be at velocity zero, with respect to earth's spin. So the speed varies from a max of 1040mph to a min of 0 in order for the air to keep up with the surface of the earth as it spins.
Imagine that you have a 1.27 m diameter steel sphere (ie about a 1/10,000,000 scale earth - I know it's heavy, but this is a "thought experiment") rotating at 1000 rpm.
At its "equator" the surface speed is 239 km/hr or 149 mph,
45° from its "equator" the surface speed is 169 km/hr or 105 mph and
it's "poles"  the surface speed is zero.
 ;D assuming I've made no mistakes but it's easy to see what I mean. ;D

Why doesn't this very rigid steel rip itself to pieces or at least be impossible to turn?
Title: Re: 100% undebunkable
Post by: douglips on July 09, 2018, 07:14:38 AM
An apple in a swimming pool is not an analogy for the earth and its atmosphere.

A swimming pool spinning on a turntable is a better analogy. Once the water is spinning with the pool, it doesn't slow down any faster than a solid object on the same turntable would.

Here's a video of that situation:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zip9ft1PgV0

The air moving across the surface of the earth and needing to adjust velocities is exactly the coriolis effect, and you see pictures of it all the time, in any swirling weather system.
Title: Re: 100% undebunkable
Post by: edby on July 09, 2018, 08:00:28 AM
thousands of people in multiple countries in multiple industries are all lying for no well explained reason, it's a bit right to call RE stupid.
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/40/Appeal-to-Popularity

Quote
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wisdom_of_Crowds
The Wisdom of Crowds: Why the Many Are Smarter Than the Few and How Collective Wisdom Shapes Business, Economies, Societies and Nations, published in 2004, is a book written by James Surowiecki about the aggregation of information in groups, resulting in decisions that, he argues, are often better than could have been made by any single member of the group. The book presents numerous case studies and anecdotes to illustrate its argument, and touches on several fields, primarily economics and psychology.

The opening anecdote relates Francis Galton's surprise that the crowd at a county fair accurately guessed the weight of an ox when their individual guesses were averaged (the average was closer to the ox's true butchered weight than the estimates of most crowd members).
The quote omits to mention that the average of the crowd was closer even than the average of the experts.

Also, AATW was not appealing to popularity. He asked why thousands of people in multiple countries in multiple industries would be lying for no well explained reason.
Title: Re: 100% undebunkable
Post by: Dr David Thork on July 09, 2018, 07:01:04 PM
thousands of people in multiple countries in multiple industries are all lying for no well explained reason, it's a bit right to call RE stupid.
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/40/Appeal-to-Popularity

Quote
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wisdom_of_Crowds
The Wisdom of Crowds: Why the Many Are Smarter Than the Few and How Collective Wisdom Shapes Business, Economies, Societies and Nations, published in 2004, is a book written by James Surowiecki about the aggregation of information in groups, resulting in decisions that, he argues, are often better than could have been made by any single member of the group. The book presents numerous case studies and anecdotes to illustrate its argument, and touches on several fields, primarily economics and psychology.

The opening anecdote relates Francis Galton's surprise that the crowd at a county fair accurately guessed the weight of an ox when their individual guesses were averaged (the average was closer to the ox's true butchered weight than the estimates of most crowd members).
The quote omits to mention that the average of the crowd was closer even than the average of the experts.

Also, AATW was not appealing to popularity. He asked why thousands of people in multiple countries in multiple industries would be lying for no well explained reason.

If you are going to invoke the wisdom of crowds and continue to ask why so many people (which is an appeal to popularity despite your objection) I'm going to hit you with
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordinary_Popular_Delusions_and_the_Madness_of_Crowds
Title: Re: 100% undebunkable
Post by: alfred1 on July 15, 2018, 09:22:31 AM
100% undebunkable proof that the earth is not flat. but read the proof before you ban me please:
if the earth was flat we would be able to see all stars from all sides of the earth. which dosen't happen. also you claim that objects that are far away can't been seen beacause human eye records ~450 Mp but then how do we see the stars that are supposed to be 0.5 from the lenght of the plate away from us. also planes aren't effected of the atmosphere beacause the gravity is stronger. we don't feel the earth's movement beacause we cannot feel speed. we can feel speed changes. take an experiment: use an elevator and close your eyes. no press the button to move the elevator. you can feel that  the elevator moves at first but then you have no idea. u still feel something beacause the elevator dosen't move at 100% stable speeds. give me proof that the earth is flat and i will debunk it for you  ;)
You can try this on a train as well. Just don't lookout of the window. Since we are travelling at  the same speed as the train/lift. then obviously we can't feel the speed. Only the initial acceleration.
Title: Re: 100% undebunkable
Post by: BigGuyWhoKills on July 17, 2018, 10:34:06 PM
So, at the surface the air must be moving with the earth then at 1040mph ... at the equator. As I move north and south, that air needs to decelerate to a full stop (well but for what must be a huge cyclone at the poles). Also as I travel up into the atmosphere, the air needs to accelerate to get round this bigger circumference. The air, according to your theory must be changing velocity to match location imperceptibly all the time else I would feel that wind rush.

Thork, you seem like you know a lot, so I'll ask you a question.  If the air is moving at 1040 MPH at the equator, and slowing to a full stop at the poles, how much airspeed change would there be per mile?

I'll help you.  You take the distance from the equator to either pole: 12,000 miles, and divide that by the difference in airspeed between the poles and the equator: 1040 MPH.  12,000 / 1040 = 0.0866.  That means the air movement slows down by 0.0866 miles per hour over the distance of a mile.

You asked why this delta is not felt.  I'll help you with that as well.  Let's say you take up about 2 feet of distance inside of one of those miles.  We should calculate how much airspeed change there is over a 2 foot distance.  To do that, we need to know how much speed change there is per foot (and then we will double that).  So take the 0.0866 and divide that by 5280 to get the delta in feet.  0.0866 / 5280 = 0.000016414.  Doubling that gives us 0.00003282 MPH!  If my math is correct, this would be about 2 inches per hour.  So that is the maximum airspeed change you would feel due to the air changing speeds between the equator and the poles.

Since I'm not as well versed as you in static electrical induction, I will leave you to do the calculations to see how many lightning bolts per second a 2 inch per hour wind would generate.  Mu hunch tells me it will not get your DeLorean back to 1985.
Title: Re: 100% undebunkable
Post by: Dr David Thork on July 18, 2018, 12:01:33 AM
I'm tapping out. I can't do this.

I started with the Feynman lectures to see if I could get the background electricity per square meter. I knew that as you go up, you get 100v per meter. In other words there is already a 200v difference between your feet and your nose.

(http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/img/FLP_II/f09-01/f09-01_tc_iPad_big_a.svgz)

you don't get electrocuted walking around because

(http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/img/FLP_II/f09-01/f09-01_tc_iPad_big_b.svgz)

I wanted to find his mathematical calculations so I could isolate the forces in static air and then add turbulent air at the rate we discussed. This information isn't readily available, and I'm not as smart as Richard Feynman.

I decided to tackle this a second way.

I thought if I could work out the charges on the ions from first principles for say a square meter of air, I could then add the necessary movement in later. But the maths is ... lets just say its a thesis, not a forum post.
https://www.alphalabinc.com/electrostatic-formulas/

So then I had a third idea. Why don't I just see the amount of static electricity generated by Coriolis. That is the number we are after, when all is said and done. Now I know that electrical engineers use a pseudo-Coriolis force when working out static electricity in circuits. So take the maths of that and scale it up to world size. I could then subtract it from Feynman's world battery calculation. If I got a negative number, I proved you and globe science wrong.
http://www.cartesio-episteme.net/ep8/vorticity.pdf

My conclusion is ... if I could do this and get the number for Coriolis induced atmospheric charge, I'd be on the end of a Nobel prize.

In other words, my intuition is moving billions of tons of gases around each other across the whole earth would add up to an astronomical number ... but neither you nor I will be able to debate this any further because we are both too stupid in comparison to the likes of Feynman who also never got this far with his research. Sorry, I did try. This is just beyond me.
Title: Re: 100% undebunkable
Post by: BillO on July 18, 2018, 03:46:15 AM
You are looking to move a molecule of air 40,000km every day! That's a hell of a distance for it to travel. And that takes power.
  I'll go you one better, on the RE (Real Earth) the atmosphere actually rotates faster, on  average than does the surface - at all latitudes.  Not by much, but it's there.

However, your assertion that there would some sort of wind shear going north (or south) from the equator is a fallacy.  Take a pan of water and rotate it very slowly, you don't have to go a slow as the earth, but 1 revolution an hour should do.  Tell me if you see any whirl pools or vortices form.  They won't, but the water will rotate with the pan.  The reason begin is that the differential in rotational speed as you go north or south (or across the pan) is tiny - much lower than the random fluctuations in the speed of the fluids caused by turbulences and thermal effects.
Title: Re: 100% undebunkable
Post by: SphericalEarther on July 18, 2018, 08:29:14 AM
The earth is constantly spinning, there is no friction which tries to stop the spin.
The air is spinning with the earth, there is no friction which tries to stop the air.

If we assumed a starting point, where the air was not moving but the earth was spinning as it is now:

How is this so hard to understand for flat earthers.

Speed does not require power when there is no friction. Acceleration requires power.
Look up spinning tops in a vacuum, they spin for way longer because there is way less friction in vacuum.
In the complete vacuum of space, where there is no friction, a ball can spin forever without requiring any external force.
Title: Re: 100% undebunkable
Post by: Dr David Thork on July 18, 2018, 12:04:24 PM
However, your assertion that there would some sort of wind shear going north (or south) from the equator is a fallacy.
Assuming none of the air moves ever and every atom stays exactly where it is, as though it were a solid ... you'd still be wrong. We see shear forces even in the solid and liquid of a round earth. This is why the earth bulges at the equator according to RE.

If the air moves North or South, that air has mass. And you need to apply a force to either speed it up or slow it down. This as mentioned is just simple Newtonian physics.

Speed does not require power when there is no friction. Acceleration requires power.
Correct, which is why if you accelerate or decelerate the average speed of air as it moves North or South (and it will because of Coriolis, even if you exclude the Hadley Cell effect and trade winds due to continental/ocean temperature differences) you have a rate of change. And rates of change require power (Newton).

I get it. Air is hard to imagine. It is invisible. But its turbulent and is moves over and over itself as it spins with earth. Maybe this will help you visualise rotating air moving around itself in a chaos type format.
https://youtu.be/QwoghxwETng?t=1m8s

Now the real reason is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_shear

And this occurs because earth spins *hint: you don't want to deny this, you want to accept and prove it if the earth is to be round*. I don't mind if you round earthers get the shape of earth wrong, but make sure you understand how your theory works at least.

Without accepting wind sheer caused by spin, you blow away a huge ROUND earth proof. Not that in 10 years anyone has ever brought this up ... but hey, I'm not on your side.

Wind changes direction with altitude ... and it tends to 'back' in the Northern hemisphere (anti-clockwise) and 'veer' in the Southern hemisphere (clockwise).

This is known to all pilots around the world. It helps you guess the wind direction at certain altitudes if you don't have the data.

Please read the short piece on geostrophic and cyclostrophic winds below. Note the friction mentioned (ie gonna get static build up).
https://www.recreationalflying.com/tutorials/meteorology/section6.html

Note also the effect of friction on the surface of the earth (setion 6.2). Yes, you keep denying such a thing exists. Like we are in some kind of perpetual motion machine. The air will act like a giant brake on the earth as mentioned before.
If you want proof here is someone testing that theory in an aircraft.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Na55qWF4-zA


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F_M84RLFSws
Some basics about wind here.


Quote from: https://www.weather.gov/source/zhu/ZHU_Training_Page/winds/Wx_Terms/Flight_Environment.htm
VEERING AND BACKING

The wind veers when it changes direction clockwise. Example: The surface wind is blowing from 270°. At 2000 feet it is blowing from 280°. It has changed in a right-hand, or clockwise, direction.

The wind backs when it changes direction anti-clockwise. Example: The wind direction at 2000 feet is 090° and at 3000 feet is 085°. It is changing in a left-hand, or anti-clockwise, direction.

In a descent from several thousand feet above the ground to ground level, the wind will usually be found to back and also decrease in velocity, as the effect of surface friction becomes apparent. In a climb from the surface to several thousand feet AGL, the wind will veer and increase.


So ... once you learn about weather properly, I want to know a) why the earth hasn't come to a stop with all this surface friction slowing it down b) why I'm not being hit by lightning bolts every 3 seconds with all this static build up. You will have to learn more than I have shown you to answer those questions ... and we can all assume the earth is flat until you do.
Title: Re: 100% undebunkable
Post by: SphericalEarther on July 18, 2018, 12:28:33 PM
Apparently you don't get that wind follows the RE. Is that so hard to acknowledge?
Wind is generally caused by high and low temperatures meeting, nothing to do with the spin of earth.
Wind causes friction, but why would you think it doesn't cause friction in all directions, and why can't you comprehend that wind really doesn't have the power to prevent the earth from spinning, but instead its the earth providing spin to the air.
You just don't get it.

Let me explain it differently then...

Imagine the spherical earth with air on it, the earth isn't spinning, the air isn't moving. Is there any wind? No.
Imagine putting a camera with the ability to see wind far away from earth, always pointing at earth, always pointing from the same location relative to earth, it will follow the earth when it spins.
The camera will see a seemingly stationary earth with stationary air.

Now spin the earth, and from the camera you will see a seemingly stationary earth with winds at speeds of 1000 mph at the equator.
Lets reset, and instead of spinning the earth, we spin the earth and air at the same time, they are now spinning at the same speeds, the camera will see a seemingly stationary earth with stationary air.

The air as explained is moving with the earth, there is no force trying to stop the air from moving with the earth. What is different you might ask, very little.
Due to the spin of earth, matter closer to the equator is moving ever so slightly faster than matter further away, and this tiny difference which means nothing to the small scale of us actually provides enough difference in force that winds will tend to circulate in a clockwise rotation in the southern hemisphere and counterclockwise in the northern hemisphere.
If we lived on a non-spinning planet, it would be 50/50 if hurricanes ended up clockwise or counterclockwise, but since there is a bias due to the rotation of earth, it will provide the outcome from this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mXaad0rsV38
Title: Re: 100% undebunkable
Post by: Dr David Thork on July 18, 2018, 12:35:15 PM
Yeah ... no.

Go back and read my post. You have to understand the fundamentals of how wind works, specifically why we get backing and veering at various altitudes.
Title: Re: 100% undebunkable
Post by: Tumeni on July 18, 2018, 12:38:02 PM
So ... once you learn about weather properly, I want to know a) why the earth hasn't come to a stop with all this surface friction slowing it down

... because, as stated above, the earth and atmosphere move broadly in accord with each other, localised weather systems excluded. You're trying to imply the movement of the Earth should be leaving the atmosphere behind, but the two equalised themselves millions of years ago.

As was said;

The atmosphere would slow down the earth due to friction by a tiny bit
The earth would speed up the atmosphere due to friction by a large amount
After a long time the earth and the atmosphere would spin at the same speed, the earth would only spin a tiny bit slower having lost some kinetic energy to speed up the atmosphere

They would now spin at the same rate basically forever, as there is no friction slowing them down
Title: Re: 100% undebunkable
Post by: Tumeni on July 18, 2018, 12:40:44 PM
You have to understand the fundamentals of how wind works, specifically why we get backing and veering at various altitudes.

Clearly you've been studying it for years. Clearly you haven't just picked up a couple of videos from YouTube in the last couple of hours. Clearly, you have a degree in meteorology or a similar discipline.
Title: Re: 100% undebunkable
Post by: Dr David Thork on July 18, 2018, 12:46:41 PM
They would now spin at the same rate basically forever, as there is no friction slowing them down
I just linked you about 4 sources showing you that their is friction at the surface. Friction is friction. It is a force counter to the direction of a moving object. Go back and have another think. Don't tell me there is no friction, when every source says there is.

You have to understand the fundamentals of how wind works, specifically why we get backing and veering at various altitudes.

Clearly you've been studying it for years. Clearly you haven't just picked up a couple of videos from YouTube in the last couple of hours. Clearly, you have a degree in meteorology or a similar discipline.
Clearly I have a commercial pilots license and scored 100% in my meteorology exams. I also have a degree in Aerospace Engineering where I studied fluid dynamics and aerodynamics. What might be more helpful for me is that I have an A-level in geography which might help me bring the discussion back down to your level.  ::)

You can trust that I understand weather. Retired pilots often become weatherman. They know about weather in ways most people don't. Its a huge part of the discipline.

Below is Francis Wilson. A famous British weather forecaster ... and former British Airways pilot.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M-2qwZ4m82c
Title: Re: 100% undebunkable
Post by: Tumeni on July 18, 2018, 12:54:26 PM
Clearly I have a commercial pilots license and scored 100% in my meteorology exams. I also have a degree in Aerospace Engineering where I studied fluid dynamics and aerodynamics. What might be more helpful for me is that I have an A-level in geography which might help me bring the discussion back down to your level.  ::)

You can trust that I understand weather. Retired pilots often become weatherman. They know about weather in ways most people don't. Its a huge part of the discipline.

OK, I yield to you having these qualifications as claimed. I shouldn't have given in to my cynicism above.

All this, including differences between Northern and Southern Hemisphere, and you still insist the world's not a globe?  Really?
Title: Re: 100% undebunkable
Post by: Dr David Thork on July 18, 2018, 12:56:00 PM
Clearly I have a commercial pilots license and scored 100% in my meteorology exams. I also have a degree in Aerospace Engineering where I studied fluid dynamics and aerodynamics. What might be more helpful for me is that I have an A-level in geography which might help me bring the discussion back down to your level.  ::)

You can trust that I understand weather. Retired pilots often become weatherman. They know about weather in ways most people don't. Its a huge part of the discipline.

OK, I yield to you having these qualifications as claimed. I shouldn't have given in to my cynicism above.

All this, including differences between Northern and Southern Hemisphere, and you still insist the world's not a globe?  Really?

TFES is about debating science which I guess is why you enjoy coming here. If we all take the same side ... there is no debate.  ;)

The reward should be that you learn new things and understand what you are talking about. And the best way to do that, is GOOGLE shit you don't know to make an argument once you do. Not just say "earth is round, you are an idiot". Prove I'm an idiot.

Pro-tip. You learn more finding flaws in RE than you ever could regurgitating it.
Title: Re: 100% undebunkable
Post by: SphericalEarther on July 18, 2018, 01:02:11 PM
I just linked you about 4 sources showing you that their is friction at the surface. Friction is friction. It is a force counter to the direction of a moving object. Go back and have another think. Don't tell me there is no friction, when every source says there is.
You are wrong here as well. Friction isn't a counter force.

Lets try again with a different example, if we have a stationary earth with 1000 mph winds. BOTH the earth and the winds are affected by friction. The earth will start to spin a tiny bit by the friction, and the winds will slow down significantly by the friction. AKA, the earth will speed up, not slow down, due to the existing force of wind.

The winds on the surface of earth moves in all directions, providing both friction to theoretically speed up and slow down the spin of the earth due to friction almost equally. But this friction is as good as negligible due to the sheer mass of the earth compared to the tiny mass of the atmosphere.

Total atmosphere mass: approximately 6 quadrillion tons
Total earth mass: approximately 6,000,000 quadrillion tons

The atmosphere really stands no chance in a contest, and it already follows the spin of the earth. It isn't trying to slow the earth down in any way and even if it tried, if wouldn't do anything.
Title: Re: 100% undebunkable
Post by: Dr David Thork on July 18, 2018, 01:04:39 PM
Friction isn't a counter force.
I'm going to single this out as stupid comment of the week.

Title: Re: 100% undebunkable
Post by: Rama Set on July 18, 2018, 01:10:16 PM
Clearly I have a commercial pilots license and scored 100% in my meteorology exams. I also have a degree in Aerospace Engineering where I studied fluid dynamics and aerodynamics. What might be more helpful for me is that I have an A-level in geography which might help me bring the discussion back down to your level.  ::)

You can trust that I understand weather. Retired pilots often become weatherman. They know about weather in ways most people don't. Its a huge part of the discipline.

OK, I yield to you having these qualifications as claimed. I shouldn't have given in to my cynicism above.

All this, including differences between Northern and Southern Hemisphere, and you still insist the world's not a globe?  Really?

TFES is about debating science which I guess is why you enjoy coming here. If we all take the same side ... there is no debate.  ;)

The reward should be that you learn new things and understand what you are talking about. And the best way to do that, is GOOGLE shit you don't know to make an argument once you do. Not just say "earth is round, you are an idiot". Prove I'm an idiot.

Pro-tip. You learn more finding flaws in RE than you ever could regurgitating it.

You learn even more figuring out how physics works on a RE than coming up with incorrect objections.
Title: Re: 100% undebunkable
Post by: SphericalEarther on July 18, 2018, 01:15:21 PM
Friction isn't a counter force.
I'm going to single this out as stupid comment of the week.
You just don't get it.

Stand in front of a giant fan blowing air at you. It provides friction against you pushing you away from the fan. Do you slow down due to that friction?

It just seems you will never get it.
Title: Re: 100% undebunkable
Post by: Dr David Thork on July 18, 2018, 01:17:46 PM
You learn even more figuring out how physics works on a RE than coming up with incorrect objections.
You think you learn more by regurgitating things you know, than you would looking at a problem and then trying to find obscurities that other people would misconceive? At that point, who knows more ... the person misconceiving or the person two steps ahead setting the pitfalls?

In this thread I already know about backing and veering. I know how Coriolis effects that. I also know that when you punch the numbers in, if you don't account for something else, the earth grinds to a halt in about 20 years. So first you have to catch up with the wind. Then you'll do the numbers. Then the earth can't spin and I've won the debate ... because I knew more about science.

I had to give up on the lighning earlier in this thread. I thought you would all misconceive the potential difference between altitudes. I knew Feynman and that you'd get 100 volts per meter as you went up. But I couldn't isolate the bit you asked for without accounting for it. If you did, you'd have electrocuted everyone on earth about 20,000 times a day. If I could have just pulled out the static charges and made that the total with the earth battery Feynman included without your knowing, you'd all be in that hole too.

Friction isn't a counter force.
I'm going to single this out as stupid comment of the week.
You just don't get it.

Stand in front of a giant fan blowing air at you. It provides friction against you pushing you away from the fan. Do you slow down due to that friction?

It just seems you will never get it.
Please stop.
Title: Re: 100% undebunkable
Post by: SphericalEarther on July 18, 2018, 01:24:00 PM
Please stop.
Why? You seem to have this strange belief that wind tries to be stationary, always pushing against the spin of the earth in the RE model, and I'm simply explaining where you are wrong using as simple examples as I can think of.
You seem to have the wrong fundamental logic in regards to friction at least, so at least correct that notion as that seems to be your primary argument, or explain why friction is a counter force as you claim.
Title: Re: 100% undebunkable
Post by: Dr David Thork on July 18, 2018, 01:29:17 PM
Please stop.
Why? You seem to have this strange belief that wind tries to be stationary, always pushing against the spin of the earth in the RE model, and I'm simply explaining where you are wrong.
You seem to have the wrong fundamental logic in regards to friction at least, so at least correct that notion as that seems to be your primary argument, or explain why friction is a counter force as you claim.
Dude, I used to also be an Aerodynamicist for Airbus. I helped design aircraft like the A380 and A340. I know what friction is.

You can equate it using a drag formula.

drag is equivalent to lift in level flight with no speed change.

The lift equation is L=1/2pV^2SCl

I can substitute lift directly for drag to get the same equation.

Now if you use that formula which is now D=1/2pV^2SCd you stop the earth because S (your surface area) and V (the speed of earth spinning) are going to f you over. If you don't apply relativity, you stopped the earth.

I'm bored of this thread. It was too hard for the participants. You have all the answers.
Title: Re: 100% undebunkable
Post by: SphericalEarther on July 18, 2018, 01:42:12 PM
Please stop.
Why? You seem to have this strange belief that wind tries to be stationary, always pushing against the spin of the earth in the RE model, and I'm simply explaining where you are wrong.
You seem to have the wrong fundamental logic in regards to friction at least, so at least correct that notion as that seems to be your primary argument, or explain why friction is a counter force as you claim.
Dude, I used to also be an Aerodynamicist for Airbus. I helped design aircraft like the A380 and A340. I know what friction is.

You can equate it using a drag formula.

drag is equivalent to lift in level flight with no speed change.

The lift equation is L=1/2pV^2SCl

I can substitute lift directly for drag to get the same equation.

Now if you use that formula which is now D=1/2pV^2SCd you stop the earth because S (your surface area) and V (the speed of earth spinning) are going to f you over. If you don't apply relativity, you stopped the earth.

I'm bored of this thread. It was too hard for the participants. You have all the answers.
Drag... Not friction...

Drag is the effect which slows down an airplane travelling through air, the equation assumes the air to be still.
Friction is the cause of drag, yes, but your trying to equate an airplane travelling through still air, to the earth always spinning through still air compared to its rotation.
Drag calculations doesn't even factor in that while the air will slow down the plane, the plane will speed up the air. This is friction, friction applies to both the plane and the air.

The plane with a weight of approximately 500 tons, vs the complete atmosphere of 6 quadrillion tons, will slow down the aircraft way way more than it will speed up the atmosphere.
Just like the atmosphere with a weight of 6 quadrillion tons will have basically no effect against the 6,000,000 quadrillion tons of the earth.
The atmosphere will move with the earth just like the plane will move with the air, friction at work, works both ways, biggest object wins.
Title: Re: 100% undebunkable
Post by: BillO on July 18, 2018, 01:45:16 PM
However, your assertion that there would some sort of wind shear going north (or south) from the equator is a fallacy.
Assuming none of the air moves ever and every atom stays exactly where it is, as though it were a solid ... you'd still be wrong. We see shear forces even in the solid and liquid of a round earth. This is why the earth bulges at the equator according to RE.
Your mixing things up here.  Yes, of of curse there are forces, and despite them adding up to only .034M/s/s, they have an effect.  I am not unaware of them.  However, that really has nothing to do with the rate at which one particle moves WRT it's neighbor.  For wind shears to occur, the rate must be larger, considerably larger, than the dynamic noise (thermal, turbulence) but it's not, it's vanishingly small.

Quote
If the air moves North or South, that air has mass. And you need to apply a force to either speed it up or slow it down. This as mentioned is just simple Newtonian physics.
Yes, I agree, but I'm not sure why you are mentioning this as it does not apply to resolving the rotating atmosphere problem.  But let's see if we can apply it nonetheless.  Let's assume there was enough of a velocity gradient stemming solely from the rotational speed of the atmosphere along a given longitude to produce a minor disturbance, such as Helmhotz waves.  This will, as you accurately state, require energy to deflect the flow of air north and south of the shear line.  Energy that must come from the difference in velocity across the shear.  Which is just not available from the rotation of the atmosphere...

The velocity of the atmosphere is given by the simple equation:

v= Vosin(a), where a is the angle from the axis of rotation and Vo is the velocity at the equator.

Taking the derivative we get simply,

dv/da = Vocos(a)  Such that as the velocity approaches it's highest, at the equator, the velocity gradient, which is tiny at it's worst, approaches zero.

So your original assertion:
Quote
So, at the surface the air must be moving with the earth then at 1040mph ... at the equator. As I move north and south, that air needs to decelerate to a full stop (well but for what must be a huge cyclone at the poles). 
  Is just not correct.

You also, correctly, said
Quote
The air, according to your theory must be changing velocity to match location imperceptibly...
Which is exactly what we see.

In fact, at it's worst the velocity gradient due to the rotation of the atmosphere is about 0.25 kph per kilometer as one leaves a pole heading toward the equator.  This diminishes rapidly to zero at the equator.
Title: Re: 100% undebunkable
Post by: Dr David Thork on July 18, 2018, 01:55:36 PM
Drag... Not friction...
Drag on an aircraft is made of 3 components.

Skin friction drag ... the same as we see on this earth problem
Form drag ... not required
Lift induced drag ... not required for earth issue.

As Lift induced drag & form drag is zero, I can just ignore it and use the same formula to calculate the rest.

So in this case, friction is drag. A small component would be heat but I can approximate that to zero as well. I already gave the answer to this problem.
Title: Re: 100% undebunkable
Post by: SphericalEarther on July 18, 2018, 02:04:00 PM
Drag... Not friction...
Drag on an aircraft is made of 3 components.

Skin friction drag ... the same as we see on this earth problem
Form drag ... not required
Lift induced drag ... not required for earth issue.

As Lift induced drag & form drag is zero, I can just ignore it and use the same formula to calculate the rest.

So in this case, friction is drag. A small component would be heat but I can approximate that to zero as well. I already gave the answer to this problem.
It feels as though you only read the first line...

Here are 2 highlights... please read and understand them...
Quote
the equation assumes the air to be still
Quote
friction applies to both the plane and the air

Drag is not friction, drag equations use the friction of STILL AIR.

Your calculations are right however, perfectly usable for a plane or other airborne craft which moves through still air.

The earth spins and the air spins with the earth, it does not provide friction.
There are winds on earth, but they are rather local and move in all directions, and while they may provide a small amount of friction, they do so in all directions, and they do so an insignificant amount anyways doe to the shear mass of the earth.

It is as though you only think one direction. That the air will affect the earth with friction while the earth would not affect the air, while it is mostly opposite, times a million.
Title: Re: 100% undebunkable
Post by: Dr David Thork on July 18, 2018, 02:09:46 PM
Yeah, its you not reading.

You would get skin friction drag. You wouldn't get form drag because you are in the vacuum of space. I gave you about 4 links previously of people telling you you get friction at the surface.
Title: Re: 100% undebunkable
Post by: SphericalEarther on July 18, 2018, 02:25:39 PM
Yeah, its you not reading.

You would get skin friction drag. You wouldn't get form drag because you are in the vacuum of space. I gave you about 4 links previously of people telling you you get friction at the surface.
Friction, something which occurs when matter meets matter, and you are claiming that there is surface friction when the matter of the atmosphere meets the vacuum of space?

Try watching this again:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F_M84RLFSws

Friction does not affect winds when higher than 700 ft. The friction below is caused by the surface of the earth and does not automatically imply (as you seem to believe) that friction only works to counter to earths rotation.

Can you at least acknowledge that friction works both ways?
Title: Re: 100% undebunkable
Post by: AATW on July 18, 2018, 03:06:00 PM
Dude, I used to also be an Aerodynamicist for Airbus. I helped design aircraft like the A380 and A340. I know what friction is.
Shit! You could have told me before, I've flown in an A380. I'm surprised the thing didn't fall apart ;)

Admittedly you seem to have more knowledge about all this than me but if the atmosphere was a brake on the earth in the way I think you're implying then you'd have 1000 mile an hour winds at the equator rubbing against the ground. But we don't, so...
Title: Re: 100% undebunkable
Post by: Dr David Thork on July 18, 2018, 04:16:48 PM
Yeah, I already told you that. And relativity ...


Also, if I gave you the equation for momentum ... you'd be happy with p = m* v

However when looking at momentum of air for in-compressible air the equation for momentum needs to be expanded to

(https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/67918cb29f0da2555d14100d6bb2efa0693b61e8)

With compressible I need to expand again.

I can do the same with the drag equation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drag_equation

You'd be happy with
(https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/144ce01ab76e5e8a0662dbf0f5b922abfa726e9c)

But that doesn't include relativity.

You ending up with 1000 miles per hour is the trap I set. The delta is actually only the slowing caused by friction. Say 5 mph in a light wind. V is exponential ... V^2 so you'd have been a million miles away scratching your head.

Like I said, we are done with this thread. The fun has been sucked out of it.
Title: Re: 100% undebunkable
Post by: BillO on July 18, 2018, 05:29:42 PM
Yeah, I already told you that. And relativity ...


Also, if I gave you the equation for momentum ... you'd be happy with p = m* v

However when looking at momentum of air for in-compressible air the equation for momentum needs to be expanded to

(https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/67918cb29f0da2555d14100d6bb2efa0693b61e8)

With compressible I need to expand again.

I can do the same with the drag equation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drag_equation

You'd be happy with
(https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/144ce01ab76e5e8a0662dbf0f5b922abfa726e9c)

But that doesn't include relativity.

You ending up with 1000 miles per hour is the trap I set. The delta is actually only the slowing caused by friction. Say 5 mph in a light wind. V is exponential ... V^2 so you'd have been a million miles away scratching your head.

Like I said, we are done with this thread. The fun has been sucked out of it.
What??!!!

That equation has absolutely nothing, and I mean nothing, to do with momentum.  What you have done, but are ill equipped to realize it, is to show someone else' derivation of the density distribution through an incomprehensible fluid from the mass continuity equation.  the character 'ρ' in that equation is 'rho', meaning density, not 'p' for momentum.

You have not even completed the derivation.  It needs to be set = to zero (as density is assumed not to vary over time in the applicable case) to give a partial differential equation which then needs to be solved.

You're out of your depth man.
Title: Re: 100% undebunkable
Post by: Round Eyes on July 18, 2018, 06:53:19 PM
Yeah, I already told you that. And relativity ...


Also, if I gave you the equation for momentum ... you'd be happy with p = m* v

However when looking at momentum of air for in-compressible air the equation for momentum needs to be expanded to

(https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/67918cb29f0da2555d14100d6bb2efa0693b61e8)

With compressible I need to expand again.

I can do the same with the drag equation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drag_equation

You'd be happy with
(https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/144ce01ab76e5e8a0662dbf0f5b922abfa726e9c)

But that doesn't include relativity.

You ending up with 1000 miles per hour is the trap I set. The delta is actually only the slowing caused by friction. Say 5 mph in a light wind. V is exponential ... V^2 so you'd have been a million miles away scratching your head.

Like I said, we are done with this thread. The fun has been sucked out of it.
What??!!!

That equation has absolutely nothing, and I mean nothing, to do with momentum.  What you have done, but are ill equipped to realize it, is to show someone else' derivation of the density distribution through an incomprehensible fluid from the mass continuity equation.  the character 'ρ' in that equation is 'rho', meaning density, not 'p' for momentum.

You have not even completed the derivation.  It needs to be set = to zero (as density is assumed not to vary over time in the applicable case) to give a partial differential equation which then needs to be solved.

You're out of your depth man.

Baby Thork, we are still best friends...but come on man.  you boofed this one up good.  BillO is completely right.  this is a derivation of the mass continuity equation assuming newtonian fluids...

will give you the benefit of the doubt and hopefully you just posted the wrong image.

Title: Re: 100% undebunkable
Post by: Dr David Thork on July 18, 2018, 07:01:06 PM
Really. The Navier Stokes equations have nothing to do with momentum?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derivation_of_the_Navier%E2%80%93Stokes_equations

Oh, look ... you start deriving them from the basic momentum equation.

Completed the equation? It was complete for the bit I described. Sure you can continue to find other things as the wiki link no doubt told you. But you had no idea what that equation even was. Its been 20 years since I had to derive that from first principles in a uni exam. No way I could derive it now. I suppose you can just derive Navier Stokes equations off the top of your head?

Even at work I never had to derive it. Each part was broken up into a separate set of programs. I just picked the program I needed and ran the numbers ... I'm wasting my time.

You have not even completed the derivation.  It needs to be set = to zero (as density is assumed not to vary over time in the applicable case) to give a partial differential equation which then needs to be solved.
You can read a wiki page and almost understand it. Nice.

You're out of your depth man.
::)

Title: Re: 100% undebunkable
Post by: BillO on July 18, 2018, 07:23:38 PM
Really. The Navier Stokes equations have nothing to do with momentum?

That is not what I said, is it?  What you passed off was not the Navier-Stokes equation.  It was this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Navier%E2%80%93Stokes_equations#Continuity_equation_for_incompressible_fluid (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Navier%E2%80%93Stokes_equations#Continuity_equation_for_incompressible_fluid)  Which again has nothing to do with the momentum - but it can be useful in deriving the Navier Stokes equation if you re-arrange, set to zero (as is shown in the link), and then solve the resulting partial differential equation.

Quote
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derivation_of_the_Navier%E2%80%93Stokes_equations

Oh, look ... you start deriving them from the basic momentum equation.

Which you did not show

Quote
Completed the equation? It was complete for the bit I described. Sure you can continue to find other things as the wiki link no doubt told you. But you had no idea what that equation even was. Its been 20 years since I had to derive that from first principles in a uni exam. No way I could derive it now. I suppose you can just derive Navier Stokes equations off the top of your head?

Even at work I never had to derive it. Each part was broken up into a separate set of programs. I just picked the program I needed and ran the numbers ... I'm wasting my time.

You have not even completed the derivation.  It needs to be set = to zero (as density is assumed not to vary over time in the applicable case) to give a partial differential equation which then needs to be solved.
You can read a wiki page and almost understand it. Nice.
Nice try.

Quote
You're out of your depth man.
::)

As to your recent assertion that:
Quote
Completed the equation? It was complete for the bit I described.
  No, it wasn't - again, nothing to do with momentum and not useful to Navier-Stokes derivation without solving the differential equation.

Speaking of using wiki, you obviously copied your equation directly from Wikipedia.
Title: Re: 100% undebunkable
Post by: Dr David Thork on July 18, 2018, 07:32:06 PM
I just lost another 14 IQ points reading your post.

If you want to learn what Navier Stokes equations are for ... go do it. There is no way I'm explaining it to you and correcting you through every step when I see your errors.
Title: Re: 100% undebunkable
Post by: garygreen on July 18, 2018, 08:35:14 PM
However when looking at momentum of air for in-compressible air the equation for momentum needs to be expanded to

(https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/67918cb29f0da2555d14100d6bb2efa0693b61e8)

did they not teach you dimensional analysis at uni?

both sides reduce to kg s-1.  this is not a momentum equation.  it's a mass flow equation.

all this is saying is that for an incompressible fluid, you can't have sources or sinks of mass due to fluid flow.