Re: 100% undebunkable
« Reply #20 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)



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

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


*

Offline Bobby Shafto

  • *
  • Posts: 1390
  • https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdv72TaxoaafQr8WD
    • View Profile
    • Bobby Shafto YouTube Channel
Re: 100% undebunkable
« Reply #21 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.

*

Offline Dr David Thork

  • *
  • Posts: 5188
  • https://onlyfans.com/thork
    • View Profile
Re: 100% undebunkable
« Reply #22 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.
Rate this post.      👍 6     👎 1

*

Offline Bobby Shafto

  • *
  • Posts: 1390
  • https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdv72TaxoaafQr8WD
    • View Profile
    • Bobby Shafto YouTube Channel
Re: 100% undebunkable
« Reply #23 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.

*

Offline Dr David Thork

  • *
  • Posts: 5188
  • https://onlyfans.com/thork
    • View Profile
Re: 100% undebunkable
« Reply #24 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.
Rate this post.      👍 6     👎 1

*

Offline Bobby Shafto

  • *
  • Posts: 1390
  • https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdv72TaxoaafQr8WD
    • View Profile
    • Bobby Shafto YouTube Channel
Re: 100% undebunkable
« Reply #25 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.

Re: 100% undebunkable
« Reply #26 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:



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


*

Offline Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 3179
    • View Profile
Re: 100% undebunkable
« Reply #27 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. 
=============================
Not Flat. Happy to prove this, if you ask me.
=============================

Nearly all flat earthers agree the earth is not a globe.

Nearly?

*

Offline Dr David Thork

  • *
  • Posts: 5188
  • https://onlyfans.com/thork
    • View Profile
Re: 100% undebunkable
« Reply #28 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.
« Last Edit: May 28, 2018, 05:59:32 PM by Baby Thork »
Rate this post.      👍 6     👎 1

*

Offline Bobby Shafto

  • *
  • Posts: 1390
  • https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdv72TaxoaafQr8WD
    • View Profile
    • Bobby Shafto YouTube Channel
Re: 100% undebunkable
« Reply #29 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.

*

Offline Dr David Thork

  • *
  • Posts: 5188
  • https://onlyfans.com/thork
    • View Profile
Re: 100% undebunkable
« Reply #30 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?
« Last Edit: May 28, 2018, 06:09:34 PM by Baby Thork »
Rate this post.      👍 6     👎 1

*

Offline Bobby Shafto

  • *
  • Posts: 1390
  • https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdv72TaxoaafQr8WD
    • View Profile
    • Bobby Shafto YouTube Channel
Re: 100% undebunkable
« Reply #31 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:



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?

Re: 100% undebunkable
« Reply #32 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.
I have visited from prestigious research institutions of the highest caliber, to which only our administrator holds with confidence.

*

Offline Bobby Shafto

  • *
  • Posts: 1390
  • https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdv72TaxoaafQr8WD
    • View Profile
    • Bobby Shafto YouTube Channel
Re: 100% undebunkable
« Reply #33 on: May 28, 2018, 06:20:24 PM »
So ... apple in a swimming pool. Can you improve upon that?
Venus?

*

Offline Dr David Thork

  • *
  • Posts: 5188
  • https://onlyfans.com/thork
    • View Profile
Re: 100% undebunkable
« Reply #34 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.
Rate this post.      👍 6     👎 1

Re: 100% undebunkable
« Reply #35 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

*

Offline Bobby Shafto

  • *
  • Posts: 1390
  • https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdv72TaxoaafQr8WD
    • View Profile
    • Bobby Shafto YouTube Channel
Re: 100% undebunkable
« Reply #36 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?

*

Offline nickrulercreator

  • *
  • Posts: 279
  • It's round. That much is true.
    • View Profile
Re: 100% undebunkable
« Reply #37 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.)
This end should point toward the ground if you want to go to space. If it starts pointing toward space you are having a bad problem and you will not go to space today.

*

Offline Dr David Thork

  • *
  • Posts: 5188
  • https://onlyfans.com/thork
    • View Profile
Re: 100% undebunkable
« Reply #38 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.
Rate this post.      👍 6     👎 1

*

Offline Dr David Thork

  • *
  • Posts: 5188
  • https://onlyfans.com/thork
    • View Profile
Re: 100% undebunkable
« Reply #39 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.  ;)
Rate this post.      👍 6     👎 1