141

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Ice Ages on FE

« on: June 05, 2019, 08:04:51 PM »

What is your basis for this assertion?  It seems to me that if GPS did not take those (plus several other) factors into account, then it wouldn't be capable of achieving centimeter accuracy in survey grade devices.

He's already posted about this in another thread. It comes from this article:
https://web.archive.org/web/20170808104846/http://qem.ee.nthu.edu.tw/f1b.pdf

Sandokhan is going to try to claim that the fact that GPS satellites don't take orbital coriolos into effect shows that GPS doesn't exist, or the Earth doesn't orbit the sun or something equally ridiculous. If you actually read the article, however, you'll see that this coriolis force doesn't exist because GPS satellites are almost exclusively considered in Earth-centered frames of reference.

The paper even states:
, if the receiver velocity is referred to a heliocentric inertial frame or even to a frame beyond the
solar system, the Earth’s orbital motion should be taken into account in addition.

So sandokhan's claim that the Earth doesn't orbit the Sun is based on mathematics that explicitly takes the Earth's motion around the Sun into account.

@sandokhan maybe we can discuss this in the other thread, if you want to get into this in more detail
EDIT: I just checked, and that thread had nothing to do with this topic either, so it's equally unrelated in both this thread and the other thread. ex deee

142

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Ice Ages on FE

« on: June 05, 2019, 07:25:27 PM »

GPS satellites DO NOT register/record either the orbital Coriolis effect (not to mention the Sagnac efect) or the solar gravitational potential.

lol, frames of reference are hard, yeah? Way to drag in another completely unrelated topic though.

143

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Ice Ages on FE

« on: June 05, 2019, 12:45:01 PM »

Then, you are a flat earth believer, since you deny that the northern hemisphere is heavier than the southern hemisphere.

Me: I already understand your claim that there is more mass in the northern hemisphere. I'm not contesting that, nor have I ever contested that.

Hello? Can you actually read my comment this time? I think this is the problem here, you're not reading any of the things I type.
Are you just trolling me?

144

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Ice Ages on FE

« on: June 05, 2019, 12:26:05 PM »

Your claim is not based on evidence, it's just your opinion.


It is the opinion issued by modern science

I already understand your claim that there is more mass in the northern hemisphere. I'm not contesting that, nor have I ever contested that. Your claim is based on a calculation that you refuse to perform. A calculation that you claim to know the result of without actually performing the calculation. You seem to think that handwaving is okay, and that putting in the values to see the result of the calculation is unnecessary, because you already know the answer. How you actually know the answer is anyone's guess.

I think this is intellectually dishonest. Clearly we disagree on this point.

Since you refuse to answer my point directly by refusing to actually perform the calculation that you think proves you right, I think it's safe to say that your evidence, and by extension your whole argument, is unfounded. Your claim is entirely opinion until you can actually back it up with numbers.

145

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Ice Ages on FE

« on: June 05, 2019, 11:39:40 AM »

It's slowly dawning on me, sandokhan. You can't perform this calculation, can you? Your claim is not based on evidence, it's just your opinion. You've never actually calculated this before, and someone asking you to actually perform a calculation to back up your claim is so alien to you that you have no idea how to react. Am I right or wrong?

Should be easy to show that I'm wrong, just perform the calculation. 

146

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Ice Ages on FE

« on: June 05, 2019, 11:14:35 AM »

Let me help you help yourself:

Very easy.

This is the "law" put forth by Newton in the Principia:

F = GmM/r²

M = mass of the Sun, which stays fixed

m₁ = mass of the northern hemisphere

m₂ = mass of the southern hemisphere

Ratio:

Gm₁M/r²/Gm₂M/r² = m₁/m₂

Since by hypothesis, m₁ > m₂, the northern hemisphere will be subjected to a greater gravitational force than the southern hemisphere will.

We're on the right track here! You were so close with this post, but then you started going off on a tangent. Let's bring it back to this point.
You gave F1/F2=m1/m2, which is a useful relation. If you give an estimate for m1 and m2 you can actually work out F1 and F2, and then we can start to discuss the result.

m1 and m2 should be easy enough to estimate, if you know the extra mass on the northern hemisphere. if mE is the mass of the Earth and mM is the mass of the extra mountains etc in the northern hemisphere,
m1=(mE/2)+mM
m2=(mE/2)-mM

I think that's correct. We're so close sandokhan. Plug and chug, plug and chug!

147

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Ice Ages on FE

« on: June 05, 2019, 11:06:02 AM »

That doesn't look like a calculation to me, sandokhan.

148

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Ice Ages on FE

« on: June 05, 2019, 10:55:35 AM »

If you can't do the calculation, sandokhan, then I really don't see what your argument is. According to you:
- Newton's law means that the north pole should face the sun
- Any time I ask you to use Newton's law to show this, you derail the conversation instead of actually doing the calculation
- Despite the fact that you haven't actually calculated anything, you know for a fact that the north pole should face the sun, because [reasons]
- You then repeatedly state that the north pole should face the sun, as if it's a fact, despite the fact that you can't possibly know this given that you haven't done any kind of calculation or experiment

Are any parts of my summary unfair? Please tell me if they are.
If you want to actually discuss a calculation involving Newton's law, then I'm available to talk. If you're just going to derail for the nth time, then don't even bother responding, please.

149

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Ice Ages on FE

« on: June 05, 2019, 10:48:23 AM »

Until then, we are left with this:

This is the "law" put forth by Newton in the Principia:

F = GmM/r2

That's what I just said. I have a feeling that you're not reading my comments. I stated multiple times that I want you to perform a calculation using Newton's law to calculate the magnitude of this force.
Me: Now show me your calculation for the force from newton's law of gravitation on an uneven sphere.
Also me:you could trivially prove your point by calculating the effect of the universal law of gravitation on an uneven sphere

Hopefully I've made myself crystal clear at this point: I want you to perform the calculation using Newton's law of universal gravitation that shows the Earth's north pole should face the sun.
All I want from you is F = x, where x is a value in Newtons.

I'll try to refrain from using the word "torque" as you don't seem to understand what it means, so any time I use it you just derail the discussion.

150

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Ice Ages on FE

« on: June 05, 2019, 09:54:01 AM »

No molten core hypothesis needed, according to you.

According to you, not to me.
[...]

But you said that this force is simply due to the law of universal gravitation, right? How does this law involve any "molten core hypothesis"?

You already said all of the rest, and I acknowledged it. Now show me your calculation for the force from newton's law of gravitation on an uneven sphere.
If you can't calculate it, then you're quite literally just making stuff up. Which is it?

you are unable to explain the seismic waves anomalies

I thought we were talking about the universal law of gravitation, not seismic wave anomalies. In fact, you quoted the law of gravitation as "your source". There's nothing about seismic waves or molten cores in this equation, so why do you keep trying to drag it back into the discussion?

It seems simple enough to me: you can't answer my questions about the universal law of gravitation because you have no idea what you're talking about. You can't perform any meaningful calculations with it because you have no idea what you're talking about.

I've said it before: you could trivially prove your point by calculating the effect of the universal law of gravitation on an uneven sphere, which you earlier implied is a totally trivial calculation. So go on, I'm waiting.

Here's my guess: instead of doing the calculation, you're going to start talking about "seismic wave anomalies" and link me to another of your forum posts on a different website. You'll post another 50-line reply that starts talking about "barometric pressure anomalies" or how "torque calculations require molten outer core hypotheses" or whatever.

Please just respond directly to the points I'm making - I've had enough word soup today.

151

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Ice Ages on FE

« on: June 05, 2019, 09:28:07 AM »

No problem, except the fact that the torque computations rely on the molten outer core hypothesis...
[...]

Errrr, okay. I don't think you understand: using Newton's law of gravitation as you're suggesting is a torque calculation by definition. No molten core hypothesis needed, according to you. This is quite contradictory.
T=F*r*sin(x). Torque exists any time a force is acting at a distance r from the centre of mass (CoM) of an object.

You seem also to have reverted to hurling word soup at me; please try to stay on-topic. I'm interested in the magnitude of the force on an uneven sphere, not "the barometer pressure paradox", or "seismic wave anomalies".

Could you just copy paste this text below as your next response? That would make me incredibly happy:
I am making claims about a force, and yet I have no idea how strong it is, not even an order of magnitude estimate.

152

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Ice Ages on FE

« on: June 05, 2019, 08:55:07 AM »

Since you like calculations so much, go ahead and use the density/volume of the core, outer core, mantle, litosphere (using the land/mountain/oceans mass for each hemisphere) to reach a final result.

An intelligent approach is to realize that F₁ will be greater than F₂, since m₁ > m₂.

Remember, it does not matter if the difference is measured in the nth decimal place: according to Newton, who only wrote down the RADIAL component of the acceleration equation, the force of gravitation deals ONLY with mass, distance and the constant G.

So you have literally no idea how strong this force is, since you haven't calculated it, and yet you're claiming it's strong enough to rotate the whole Earth in a relevant time frame? And that it's strong enough to overcome other effects, such as the rotatiuon of the Earth? If you did the calculation, maybe this force would take 100 billion years to rotate the Earth. You don't know, since you haven't done the calculation.
Maybe it's 50 orders of magnitude less than tidal forces from the moon. Maybe this force would cause some precession of the Earth's rotation that's so small that it's almost undetectable. You don't know, since you haven't done the calculation.
Do you have some other source of information that you're not revealing, or are you actually just making stuff up?

I'm honestly baffled. Even more baffling is this is the exact torque calculation that I wanted you to perform in the first place, as force acting away from an object's centre of mass causes a torque by definition.

153

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Ice Ages on FE

« on: June 05, 2019, 08:42:24 AM »

Very easy.

This is the "law" put forth by Newton in the Principia:

F = GmM/r²

M = mass of the Sun, which stays fixed

m₁ = mass of the northern hemisphere

m₂ = mass of the southern hemisphere

Okay, now plug some numbers in and get an actual value of F out...

154

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Ice Ages on FE

« on: June 05, 2019, 08:31:33 AM »

Are you telling your readers that you cannot use the law of universal gravitation in a very simple context?

Correct. I have no idea how to use the universal law of gravitation in this context. The fact that you haven't shown me how it should be used, despite the fact that I've given you ample opportunity to demonstrate it, tells me that you don't know either.

So it's really easy for you, just plug your numbers into this equation to show that the north pole should face the sun.

Sidenote: saying something with large, red text doesn't make it true either.

155

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Ice Ages on FE

« on: June 05, 2019, 07:08:31 AM »

Source?

As if you didn't know.

Here is your source:

All you've done is written down an equation. If you can't use that equation to back up your argument, it's a non-argument. Just because you state that the Earth's North Pole should face the Sun doesn't mean it's true.
All you need to do is plug your numbers into this equation and show that I'm wrong. Easy, right?

The rest of your post is just you copy-pasting things that I've already read. Your only source is talking about gravitational anomalies - if you were to go up and read my list of things that I asked for a source for, you'd notice that gravitational anomalies aren't on the list. So, could you provide sources for the things I asked about in my previous post?

I'd really much prefer if you stuck to the point we were discussing instead of pasting 50 lines of unrelated information. It means that I have to wade through a bunch of stuff just to find out it has nothing to do with what I'm trying to discuss.

Example: You have a whole paragraph about how gravity in mines was higher than predicted in 1981. Great, I'm sure that's interesting! Not what we're discussing though, is it?

156

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Ice Ages on FE

« on: June 04, 2019, 09:55:58 PM »

My evidence is very clear and also very direct.

Okay, maybe I'm not being clear enough.

A “dead force” like gravitation could not keep the unequally loaded earth in equilibrium.
Source?

The unequally loaded perfect oblate spheroid (first four layers) DEFIES the law of attractive gravity.
Source?

It should rotate with the northern hemisphere facing the sun.
Source?

It is the unequal mass distribution of the hemispheres upon a perfect oblate spheroid which defies the law of attractive gravity.
Source?

It is the unequal mass distribution of the hemispheres upon a perfect oblate spheroid which defies the law of attractive gravity.
Source?

Of course I win
Source?

You made a request for torque calculations thinking that it might save your day; it did not.
Source?

All of these claims are just you stating a thing to be true.

157

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Ice Ages on FE

« on: June 04, 2019, 09:14:17 PM »

How can you possibly know that the globe should have its north pole facing the Sun if any calculation that attempts to prove this is, according to you, incorrect?

Is this supposed to be a joke?

I'm still waiting for any evidence for your claim. You can say "lol i win" all you like, if you can't back up your claim with any evidence then it's meaningless. You're asking me to provide evidence, and yet you seem to be forgetting that the whole reason that I started talking to you is because you made a claim with no evidence. You don't get to just shift the burden of evidence onto me.
🤔⏰

158

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Ice Ages on FE

« on: June 04, 2019, 08:50:49 PM »

They are absolutely critical for the torque calculations.

Okay, so you haven't done any calculations.

The unequally loaded perfect oblate spheroid (first four layers) DEFIES the law of attractive gravity.

It should rotate with the northern hemisphere facing the sun.

How can you make this claim, then? If calculations are, according to you, completely impossible? How can you possibly know that the globe should have its north pole facing the Sun if any calculation that attempts to prove this is, according to you, incorrect?
If you can't calculate or demonstrate a claim, then it's unfounded.

159

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Ice Ages on FE

« on: June 04, 2019, 07:57:53 PM »

So that's a resounding "no", then.

No.

Why go through the trouble of providing torque calculations if you are unable to explain the necessary supporting theory?

You owe it to your readers to explain those seismic waves anomalies, otherwise your request is way beyond the scope of our current discussion.

If you cannot explain the seismic wave anomalies, then any calculations involving the torque are meaningless, this is what I have been trying to tell you.

Right. I am trying to understand why the Earth's North Pole should face the Sun, and you're talking about seismic wave anomalies as if it's critical for this. I've had a quick read through the things you linked, and I have a basic understanding of what seismic wave anomalies are. Could you explain to me why they are so critical for this particular calculation?

160

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Ice Ages on FE

« on: June 04, 2019, 07:46:10 PM »

An argument involving the torque applied to the planet RELIES on the correctness of the seismic wave theory. If the currently accepted seismic wave theory is wrong, there is no need to even take into consideration any further calculations.

So that's a resounding "no", then. Glad we cleared that up, although you could have just replied to my first comment with the word "no" and that would have saved us both a lot of time.