The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: tellytubby on June 02, 2019, 04:18:54 PM
-
There have been at least five major ice ages recorded during Earths history. I won't go into the details of what happened during each ice age as there are plenty of resources that go into that detail. However suffice is to say that all the ice ages had a generalised and significant effect on the climate all over the world.
I can't find any mention at all about the ice ages in FE Wiki so how do you build these major climatic events into the history of FET?
-
" In order for ice masses to have been formed, increased precipitation must have
taken place. This requires an increased amount of water vapor in the atmosphere, which is
the result of increased evaporation from the surface of oceans; but this could be caused by
heat only. A number of scientists pointed out this fact, and even calculated that in order to
produce a sheet of ice as large as that of the Ice Age, the surface of all the oceans must have
evaporated to a depth of many feet. Such an evaporation of oceans followed by a quick
process of freezing, even in moderate latitudes, would have produced the ice ages. The
problem is: What could have caused the evaporation and immediately subsequent freezing?
As the cause of such quick alternation of heating and freezing of large parts of the globe is
not apparent, it is conceded that "at present the cause of excessive ice-making on the lands
remains a baffling mystery, a major question for the future reader of earth's riddles."
Not only are the causes of the appearance and later disappearance of the glacial sheet
unknown, but the geographical shape of the area covered by ice is also a problem. Why did
the glacial sheet, in the southern hemisphere, move from the tropical regions of Africa
toward the south polar region and not in the opposite direction, and, similarly, why, in the
northern hemisphere, did the ice move in India from the equator toward the Himalaya
mountains and the higher latitudes? Why did the glaciers of the Ice Age cover the greater
part of North America and Europe, while the north of Asia remained free? In America the
plateau of ice stretched up to latitude 40° and even passed across this line; in Europe it
reached latitude 50°; while northeastern Siberia, above the polar circle, even above latitude
75°, was not covered with this perennial ice. All hypotheses regarding increased and
diminished insolation due to solar alterations or the changing temperature of the cosmic
space, and other similar hypotheses, cannot avoid being confronted with this problem.
Glaciers are formed in the regions of eternal snow; for this reason they remain on the slopes
of the high mountains. The north of Siberia is the coldest place in the world. Why did not
the Ice Age touch this region, whereas it visited the basin of the Mississippi and all Africa
south of the equator? No satisfactory solution to this question has been proposed."
The extinction of the mammoths occurred simultaneously with the end of the last Ice Age.
Island of California:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2169555#msg2169555 (seven consecutive messages)
-
Why did the glaciers of the Ice Age cover the greater part of North America and Europe,
while the north of Asia remained free? In America the plateau of ice stretched up to
latitude 40° and even passed across this line; in Europe it reached latitude 50°;
while northeastern Siberia, above the polar circle, even above latitude 75°, was not
covered with this perennial ice.
Northeast Siberia was free of ice during the last Ice Age because of "Polar Wander".
North pole was farther from it, more towards Greenland.
Based on evidence from the Pacific Ocean, including the position of the Hawaiian Islands,
Rice University geophysicists have determined Earth shifted relative to its spin axis within
he past 12 million years, which caused Greenland to move far enough toward the north
pole to kick off the ice age that began about 3.2 million years ago...
(from: https://news.rice.edu/2018/11/19/true-polar-wander-may-have-caused-ice-age-2/ (https://news.rice.edu/2018/11/19/true-polar-wander-may-have-caused-ice-age-2/))
-
Northeast Siberia was free of ice during the last Ice Age because of "Polar Wander".
Then, the RE have a huge problem.
They cannot state that the Ice Age occurred after 4500 BC (official chronology of history):
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1936055#msg1936055 (Gizeh pyramid perfect north-south orientation)
If the cosmic cataclysm which caused the pole shift occurred before 4500 BC, then this fact contradicts the calculations put forward by Jacques Laskar:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1774581#msg1774581
Therefore, the RE are forced to say that the pole shift was due to mantle anomalies (pole wander theory) or to the polar ice mass displacement (issued by Charles Hapgood).
However, these hypotheses cannot be true.
The position of the centre of gravity varies according to the shape of the object.
And, according to the official theory we do have an applied external force:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/math/0/f/3/0f36df929ac9d711a8ba8c5658c3bfee.png)
This is what modern science is assuming about the shape of the Earth (perfect ellipsoid/geoid):
(http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/geography/images/tec_001.gif)
(http://www.shonscience.com/uploads/2/2/1/3/22138584/1438468_orig.gif)
Each and every layer (official theory) - crust, mantle, outer/inner core - forms a perfect ellipsoid (again, if it did not, we would have a direct defiance/violation of the law of attractive gravitation).
Upon that sphere, we have the fifth and last layer, the lithosphere.
And here is where the problems begin for the RE.
Let us carefully calculate the effect/distribution of mass of the continents with respect to both hemispheres (northern and southern).
"The area of land in the northern hemisphere of the earth is to the area of land in the southern hemisphere as three is to one.
The mean weight of the land is two and three-quarter times heavier than that of water; assuming the depth of the seas in both hemispheres to be equal, the northern hemisphere up to sea level is heavier than the southern hemisphere, if judged by sea and land distribution; the earth masses above sea level are additional heavy loads - we include here all the mountains/hills.
But this unequal distribution of masses does not affect the position of the earth, as it does not place the northern hemisphere with its face to the sun. A “dead force” like gravitation could not keep the unequally loaded earth in equilibrium. Also, the seasonal distribution of ice and snow, shifting in a distillation process from one hemisphere to the other, should interfere with the equilibrium of the earth, but fails to do so."
The northern hemisphere has a greater mass than its southern counterpart.
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.
At present, the RE has an unequal distribution of mass: the northern hemisphere has more mass than the southern hemisphere.
It is the unequal mass distribution of the hemispheres upon a perfect oblate spheroid which defies the law of attractive gravity.
Since the northern hemisphere has more mass than its southern counterpart, we have a clear and definite DEFIANCE of the law of attractive gravity.
For the Pangeea hypothesis the situation is even more disastrous for the heliocentrical theory.
If we take into account the shape and size of the supercontinent Pangea, such a concentration of land mass in just one place would have meant an EVEN GREATER unequal load upon the inner layers of the Earth. It would have gradually stopped the Earth from rotating around its own axis, and Pangea would have faced the Sun 24 hours a day. The rotating layers of iron/nickel would have come to a dead stop in some weeks.
The mantle anomalies hypothesis is also contradicted by the extinction of the mammoths paradox:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2171410#msg2171410
The Ice Ages are unexplained on a spherical/orbiting Earth.
-
The unequally loaded perfect oblate spheroid (first four layers) DEFIES the law of attractive gravity.
Interesting point. Could you do some back-of-the-envelope calculations for this? I guess you estimated the north-south mass difference, you could work out an effective torque applied to the planet.
-
You cannot invoke torque calculations, since these computations involve several assumptions (the liquid layer of the Earth's outer core):
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333146591_Theory_of_tectonic_plates_movement_of_the_lithosphere_of_the_Earth
How do geologists "know" that the Earth has a solid inner core and a molten outer core?
Exactly, by using seismic waves:
http://www.columbia.edu/~vjd1/earth_int.htm
https://www.khanacademy.org/science/cosmology-and-astronomy/earth-history-topic/plate-techtonics/v/how-we-know-about-the-earth-s-core
However, now you have another huge problem: seismic waves prove the Earth is flat.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg956136#msg956136
These assumptions cannot be true:
http://davidpratt.info/inner1.htm#p1
Therefore, you still have to deal with the fact that the northern hemisphere is heavier than the southern hemisphere, thus the Earth should be rotating with the North Pole facing the Sun.
-
You cannot invoke torque calculations, since these computations involve several assumptions (the liquid layer of the Earth's outer core):
[...]
Therefore, you still have to deal with the fact that the northern hemisphere is heavier than the southern hemisphere, thus the Earth should be rotating with the North Pole facing the Sun.
I'm looking for something more back-of-the-envelope, not something exact. You are suggesting that if the North Pole was facing 90 degrees away from the Sun, that it should rotate due to mass difference between the mass of the northern hemisphere and the southern hemisphere such that the North Pole faces the Sun. I think you should be able to calculate what kind of torque this would provide on the Earth, if you ignore other effects.
-
You cannot invoke torque calculations, since these computations involve several assumptions (the liquid layer of the Earth's outer core):
[...]
Therefore, you still have to deal with the fact that the northern hemisphere is heavier than the southern hemisphere, thus the Earth should be rotating with the North Pole facing the Sun.
I'm looking for something more back-of-the-envelope, not something exact. You are suggesting that if the North Pole was facing 90 degrees away from the Sun, that it should rotate due to mass difference between the mass of the northern hemisphere and the southern hemisphere such that the North Pole faces the Sun. I think you should be able to calculate what kind of torque this would provide on the Earth, if you ignore other effects.
I included a link to exact calculations (not just back of the envelope computations) involving the torque. However, as I mentioned in my previous message (the part where you used suspension points), those calculations are based on certain assumptions which cannot be true.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333146591_Theory_of_tectonic_plates_movement_of_the_lithosphere_of_the_Earth
Here is another article which explores the same problem:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/319179377_Why_Earth's_coating_rotates_around_the_liquid_core_of_the_Earth
How do geologists "know" that the Earth has a solid inner core and a molten outer core?
Exactly, by using seismic waves:
http://www.columbia.edu/~vjd1/earth_int.htm
https://www.khanacademy.org/science/cosmology-and-astronomy/earth-history-topic/plate-techtonics/v/how-we-know-about-the-earth-s-core
However, now you have another huge problem: seismic waves prove the Earth is flat.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg956136#msg956136
These assumptions cannot be true:
http://davidpratt.info/inner1.htm#p1
Therefore, you still have to deal with the fact that the northern hemisphere is heavier than the southern hemisphere, thus the Earth should be rotating with the North Pole facing the Sun.
-
I included a link to exact calculations (not just back of the envelope computations) involving the torque. However, as I mentioned in my previous message (the part where you used suspension points), those calculations are based on certain assumptions which cannot be true.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333146591_Theory_of_tectonic_plates_movement_of_the_lithosphere_of_the_Earth
Okay, I read the paper. Not only were there no torque calculations, there actually aren't any calculations at all in this paper. Or an abstract. Or any references. Or even correct spelling and grammar.
Maybe I just missed them. Could you please point me towards exactly where the torque calculation is?
And can you stop copy-pasting that bit about seismic waves? I read it the first two times you posted it.
-
So you did not read the paper the first time around, yet you posted that earlier message today.
Now, you have read the paper and yet you obviously do not understand what is going on.
Not only were there no torque calculations, there actually aren't any calculations at all in this paper.
The formulas are right there: do you understand the physics involved?
The author of the paper acknowledges that the northern hemisphere has more mass than the southern hemisphere, so he has to make use of the ONLY argument left to the RE: an unbelievable feedback process involving the molten mantle outer core; that is, the Earth is able to counteract the heavier northern hemisphere by moving part of the molten mantle just enough to avoid a pole shift.
The molten mantle hypothesis is justified by resorting to seismic wave theory, that is why it cannot be true:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg956136#msg956136
http://davidpratt.info/inner1.htm#p1
The calculations involving any kind of torque rely on hypotheses which are pure fiction.
That is why your request is useless.
If you want anyone to believe your story, you are going to have to explain the seismic waves anomalies listed in the links provided above.
-
"The Earth’s mantle is mostly solid from the liquid outer core to the crust, but it can creep on the long-term, which surely strengthens the misconception of a liquid mantle.'
(https://earthobservatory.sg/files/faq/liquid-magma.png)
Courtesy of the U.S. Geological Society.
-
So you did not read the paper the first time around, yet you posted that earlier message today.
Now, you have read the paper and yet you obviously do not understand what is going on.
Not only were there no torque calculations, there actually aren't any calculations at all in this paper.
The formulas are right there: do you understand the physics involved?
The author of the paper acknowledges that the northern hemisphere has more mass than the southern hemisphere, so he has to make use of the ONLY argument left to the RE: an unbelievable feedback process involving the molten mantle outer core; that is, the Earth is able to counteract the heavier northern hemisphere by moving part of the molten mantle just enough to avoid a pole shift.
The molten mantle hypothesis is justified by resorting to seismic wave theory, that is why it cannot be true:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg956136#msg956136
http://davidpratt.info/inner1.htm#p1
The calculations involving any kind of torque rely on hypotheses which are pure fiction.
That is why your request is useless.
If you want anyone to believe your story, you are going to have to explain the seismic waves anomalies listed in the links provided above.
Humor me: where is the torque calculation? If you don't want to do the torque calculations then just say so, there's no need to go off on one.
-
If you want me (or anybody else) to perform torque calculations for this problem, then you better explain the seismic waves anomalies listed in the links:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg956136#msg956136
http://davidpratt.info/inner1.htm#p1
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
They are absolutely critical for the torque calculations.
Remember, all modern geology has left at its disposal is to claim that the molten outer core will reposition itself just enough to balance the effect of the heavier northern hemisphere.
Now, the existence of the molten outer core is based exactly on the correctness of the seismic wave theory. If the currently accepted seismic wave theory is false, then there is no molten outer core, and thus no need to get into torque calculations.
If you do not like my links, please provide the necessary bibliographical references which might offer a better explanation.
-
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.
-
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?
Since you cannot explain the seismic waves anomalies, then your request for torque calculations is meaningless.
Then, the fact that the northern hemisphere is heavier than the southern hemisphere is a clear and direct defiance of the law of universal gravitation as it pertains to the issue being discussed here.
If calculations are, according to you, completely impossible?
They are not impossible, just useless.
Go ahead and provide your own bibliographical references which might offer a better explanation.
Until then, I win.
-
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.
🤔⏰
-
You don't get to just shift the burden of evidence onto me.
But I do, if you cannot explain the seismic waves anomalies.
I'm still waiting for any evidence for your claim.
The evidence is very clear.
"The area of land in the northern hemisphere of the earth is to the area of land in the southern hemisphere as three is to one.
The mean weight of the land is two and three-quarter times heavier than that of water; assuming the depth of the seas in both hemispheres to be equal, the northern hemisphere up to sea level is heavier than the southern hemisphere, if judged by sea and land distribution; the earth masses above sea level are additional heavy loads - we include here all the mountains/hills.
But this unequal distribution of masses does not affect the position of the earth, as it does not place the northern hemisphere with its face to the sun. A “dead force” like gravitation could not keep the unequally loaded earth in equilibrium. Also, the seasonal distribution of ice and snow, shifting in a distillation process from one hemisphere to the other, should interfere with the equilibrium of the earth, but fails to do so."
The northern hemisphere has a greater mass than its southern counterpart.
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.
At present, the RE has an unequal distribution of mass: the northern hemisphere has more mass than the southern hemisphere.
It is the unequal mass distribution of the hemispheres upon a perfect oblate spheroid which defies the law of attractive gravity.
Since the northern hemisphere has more mass than its southern counterpart, we have a clear and definite DEFIANCE of the law of attractive gravity.
You can say "lol i win" all you like
Of course I win, since you cannot explain the seismic waves anomalies.
if you can't back up your claim with any evidence
My evidence is very clear and also very direct.
You made a request for torque calculations thinking that it might save your day; it did not.
Now you are going to have to explain why the distribution of the continents on a spherical Earth defies the law of universal attraction.
-
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.
-
Source?
As if you didn't know.
Here is your source:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/math/0/f/3/0f36df929ac9d711a8ba8c5658c3bfee.png)
BASIC NEWTONIAN PHYSICS: we have a center of gravity which is located ABOVE THE EQUATOR, given the fact that the northern hemisphere has more mass than the southern hemisphere. Then, the accepted law of universal gravitation tells us that the Earth should revolve facing the Sun with its North Pole.
According to this formula, the position of the centre of gravity varies according to the shape of the object.
"The area of land in the northern hemisphere of the earth is to the area of land in the southern hemisphere as three is to one.
The mean weight of the land is two and three-quarter times heavier than that of water; assuming the depth of the seas in both hemispheres to be equal, the northern hemisphere up to sea level is heavier than the southern hemisphere, if judged by sea and land distribution; the earth masses above sea level are additional heavy loads - we include here all the mountains/hills.
But this unequal distribution of masses does not affect the position of the earth, as it does not place the northern hemisphere with its face to the sun. A “dead force” like gravitation could not keep the unequally loaded earth in equilibrium. Also, the seasonal distribution of ice and snow, shifting in a distillation process from one hemisphere to the other, should interfere with the equilibrium of the earth, but fails to do so."
The northern hemisphere has a greater mass than its southern counterpart.
The unequally loaded perfect oblate spheroid (first four layers) DEFIES the law of attractive gravity.
Remember, if you want torque calculations, you must explain the seismic waves anomalies. If you cannot explain the seismic wave anomalies, that means that there is no molten outer core.
Very simple: the northern hemisphere is heavier than the southern hemisphere. Thus, according to the formula put forth by Newton, the force of gravity should place the North Pole facing the Sun.
Here are more gravitational anomalies which defy your request for torque calculations as well as Newton's supposed law of universal gravitation.
Mountainous masses do not exert the gravitational pull expected by the theory of gravitation. The influence of the largest mass on the earth, the Himalaya, was carefully investigated with plumb line on the Indian side. The plumb line is not deflected as calculated in advance. The attraction of the mountain-ground thus computed on the theory of gravitation, is considerably greater than is necessary to explain the anomalies observed. This singular conclusion, I confess, at first surprised me very much. (G. B. Airy.) Out of this embarrassment grew the idea of isostasy. This hypothesis explains the lack of gravitational pull by the mountains in the following way. The interior of the globe is supposed to be fluid, and the crust is supposed to float on it. The inner fluid or magma is heavier or denser, the crust is lighter. Where there is a mountainous elevation, there must also be a protuberance beneath the mountains, this immersed protuberance being of lesser mass than the magma of equal volume. The way seismic waves travel, and computations of the elasticity of the interior of the earth, force the conclusion that the earth must be as rigid as steel; but if the earth is solid for only 2000 miles from the surface, the crust must be more rigid than steel. These conclusions are not reconcilable with the principle of isostasy, which presupposes a fluid magma less than 60 miles below the surface of the earth. There remains a contradiction between isostasy and geophysical data.
Over the oceans, the gravitational pull is greater than over the continents, though according to the theory of gravitation the reverse should be true; the hypothesis of isostasy also is unable to explain this phenomenon. The gravitational pull drops at the coast line of the continents. Furthermore, the distribution of gravitation in the sea often has the peculiarity of being stronger where the water is deeper. In the whole Gulf and Caribbean region the generalization seems to hold that the deeper the water, the more strongly positive the anomalies.
As far as observations could establish, the sea tides do not influence the plumb line, which is contrary to what is expected. Observations on reservoirs of water, where the mass of water could be increased and decreased, gave none of the results anticipated on the basis of the theory of gravitation.
In 1981 a paper was published showing that measurements of G in deep mines, boreholes, and under the sea gave values about 1% higher than that currently accepted. Furthermore, the deeper the experiment, the greater the discrepancy. However, no one took much notice of these results until 1986, when E. Fischbach and his colleagues reanalyzed the data from a series of experiments by Eotvos in the 1920s, which were supposed to have shown that gravitational acceleration is independent of the mass or composition of the attracted body. Fischbach et al. found that there was a consistent anomaly hidden in the data that had been dismissed as random error. On the basis of these laboratory results and the observations from mines, they announced that they had found evidence of a short-range, composition-dependent fifth force. Their paper caused a great deal of controversy and generated a flurry of experimental activity in physics laboratories around the world.
The majority of the experiments failed to find any evidence of a composition-dependent force; one or two did, but this is generally attributed to experimental error. Several earlier experimenters have detected anomalies incompatible with newtonian theory, but the results have long since been forgotten. For instance, Charles Brush performed very precise experiments showing that metals of very high atomic weight and density tend to fall very slightly faster than elements of lower atomic weight and density, even though the same mass of each metal is used. He also reported that a constant mass or quantity of certain metals may be appreciably changed in weight by changing its physical condition. His work was not taken seriously by the scientific community, and the very precise spark photography technique he used in his free-fall experiments has never been used by other investigators. Experiments by Victor Cremieu showed that gravitation measured in water at the earth?s surface appears to be one tenth greater than that computed by newtonian theory.
On the basis of newtonian gravity, it might be expected that gravitational attraction over continents, and especially mountains, would be higher than over oceans. In reality, the gravity on top of large mountains is less than expected on the basis of their visible mass while over ocean surfaces it is unexpectedly high. To explain this, the concept of isostasy was developed: it was postulated that low-density rock exists 30 to 100 km beneath mountains, which buoys them up, while denser rock exists 30 to 100 km beneath the ocean bottom. However, this hypothesis is far from proven. Physicist Maurice Allais commented: There is an excess of gravity over the ocean and a deficiency above the continents. The theory of isostasis provided only a pseudoexplanation of this.
The standard, simplistic theory of isostasy is contradicted by the fact that in regions of tectonic activity vertical movements often intensify gravity anomalies rather than acting to restore isostatic equilibrium. For example, the Greater Caucasus shows a positive gravity anomaly (usually interpreted to mean it is overloaded with excess mass), yet it is rising rather than subsiding.
A superb study of the seminal paper published by Roland Eotvos on gravitational anomalies almost 100 years ago:
http://mek.oszk.hu/02000/02054/html/onehund.html
His discoveries remain completely unexplained by modern science.
-
Source?
As if you didn't know.
Here is your source:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/math/0/f/3/0f36df929ac9d711a8ba8c5658c3bfee.png)
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?
-
Are you telling your readers that you cannot use the law of universal gravitation in a very simple context?
Why then would you ask for torque calculations?
BASIC NEWTONIAN PHYSICS: we have a center of gravity which is located ABOVE THE EQUATOR, given the fact that the northern hemisphere has more mass than the southern hemisphere. Then, the accepted law of universal gravitation tells us that the Earth should revolve facing the Sun with its North Pole.
According to this formula, the position of the centre of gravity varies according to the shape of the object.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/math/0/f/3/0f36df929ac9d711a8ba8c5658c3bfee.png)
Here is the proof that the northern hemisphere is heavier than the southern hemisphere, thus will be subjected to a larger gravitational force from the Sun:
"The area of land in the northern hemisphere of the earth is to the area of land in the southern hemisphere as three is to one.
The mean weight of the land is two and three-quarter times heavier than that of water; assuming the depth of the seas in both hemispheres to be equal, the northern hemisphere up to sea level is heavier than the southern hemisphere, if judged by sea and land distribution; the earth masses above sea level are additional heavy loads - we include here all the mountains/hills.
But this unequal distribution of masses does not affect the position of the earth, as it does not place the northern hemisphere with its face to the sun. A “dead force” like gravitation could not keep the unequally loaded earth in equilibrium. Also, the seasonal distribution of ice and snow, shifting in a distillation process from one hemisphere to the other, should interfere with the equilibrium of the earth, but fails to do so."
The northern hemisphere has a greater mass than its southern counterpart.
The unequally loaded perfect oblate spheroid (first four layers) DEFIES the law of attractive gravity.
Now, what you tried to accomplish is to bring the torque computations into the discussion. These calculations, though, are based on certain assumptions, such as the existence of a molten outer core, which in turn rests on the correctness of the seismic wave theory.
Since you are unable to explain the seismic waves anomalies, you can no longer ask for torque calculations; also, it means that there is no molten outer core.
What you are left with is the fact that the northern hemisphere is heavier than the southern hemisphere, thus the North Pole should face the Sun.
BASIC NEWTONIAN PHYSICS: we have a center of gravity which is located ABOVE THE EQUATOR, given the fact that the northern hemisphere has more mass than the southern hemisphere. Then, the accepted law of universal gravitation tells us that the Earth should revolve facing the Sun with its North Pole.
-
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.
-
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 have a center of gravity which is located ABOVE THE EQUATOR, given the fact that the northern hemisphere has more mass than the southern hemisphere. Then, the accepted law of universal gravitation tells us that the Earth should revolve facing the Sun with its North Pole.
Convince yourself that the northern hemisphere is indeed heavier (has more mass) than its southern counterpart:
"The area of land in the northern hemisphere of the earth is to the area of land in the southern hemisphere as three is to one.
The mean weight of the land is two and three-quarter times heavier than that of water; assuming the depth of the seas in both hemispheres to be equal, the northern hemisphere up to sea level is heavier than the southern hemisphere, if judged by sea and land distribution; the earth masses above sea level are additional heavy loads - we include here all the mountains/hills.
But this unequal distribution of masses does not affect the position of the earth, as it does not place the northern hemisphere with its face to the sun. A “dead force” like gravitation could not keep the unequally loaded earth in equilibrium. Also, the seasonal distribution of ice and snow, shifting in a distillation process from one hemisphere to the other, should interfere with the equilibrium of the earth, but fails to do so."
This is the reason why heliocentrists will immediately resort to torque calculations involving the molten outer core. However, this is no longer an option since they cannot explain the seismic waves anomalies which defy the accepted molten outer core theory.
-
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...
-
According to this formula, the position of the centre of gravity varies according to the shape of the object.
Ok, the Earth's center of mass is little above Earth's geometric center.
What orbits Sun is the center of mass, not geometric center.
Earth's orientation around the center of mass will be more influenced by Earth's rotation than by revolution.
~~~~~
Aether was obsolete and it is shown that equations describe Universe simpler and more accurate without it.
Not even ring interferometer needs any form of aether to utilize Sagnac effect.
-
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.
-
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.
-
And that it's strong enough to overcome other effects, such as the rotatiuon of the Earth?
But you cannot bring into the discussion ANY ROTATIONAL FORCES.
Newton's law of universal gravitation DOES NOT mention any rotational forces at all.
This is the full acceleration equation: Newton ONLY mentioned/used/stated the first radial component:
(http://image.ibb.co/bJJHkx/acc1.jpg)
(http://image.ibb.co/bXW3Qx/acc2.jpg)
Once rotational dynamics come into play, the "universal law" of attraction is shown to be utterly false:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg753387#msg753387
One day, one of the greatest experimental physicists of the 20th century was asked a simple question, by one of his students:
If there was any difference in gravitational effect on a rotating object versus a non-rotating object?
After an extensive search in the literature, no evidence could be found that the experiment had been performed before.
This became one of the most celebrated experiments in modern physics: the spinning ball experiment.
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.
No problem, except the fact that the torque computations rely on the molten outer core hypothesis, which is denied by the seismic waves anomalies. This is what you should be focusing on, those seismic waves anomalies.
Maybe it's 50 orders of magnitude less than tidal forces from the moon.
Could be, but you cannot bring into our discussion lunar tidal forces, since there are none.
Here is the barometer pressure paradox:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1707294#msg1707294
Maybe this force would cause some precession of the Earth's rotation that's so small that it's almost undetectable.
Could be, but you cannot bring the precession into our discussion, since the acceleration of the annual precession DEFIES Newcomb's equation:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1776082#msg1776082 (two consecutive messages)
-
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.
Intelligen approach will show that the mass above center of mass will be equal to the mass below the center of mass.
Geometric center will have no influence on forces.
-
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.
-
Intelligen [sic] approach will show that the mass above center of mass will be equal to the mass below the center of mass.
Wonderful.
Then, you must accept the fact the North Pole should be facing the Sun, since the northern hemisphere is heavier (has more mass) then its southern counterpart.
-
No molten core hypothesis needed, according to you.
According to you, not to me.
At this present moment, you are unable to explain the seismic waves anomalies, therefore you cannot invoke torque calculations. Only the molten outer core would save the day for you, since then you'd be able (just like the author referenced earlier) to claim that the molten outer core displacement will match the effect of the heavier northern hemisphere.
Torque exists any time a force is acting at a distance r from the centre of mass (CoM) of an object.
Sure, but you need the molten outer core hypothesis to counterbalance the effect of the heavier mass of the northern hemisphere. Reread those two papers (which do have a somewhat poor translation from Polish to English) to understand the arguments involved.
-
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.
-
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"?
I didn't, YOU DID.
You are the one who requested torque calculations. These calculations rest on a very important hypothesis: the existence of the molten outer core. In turn, this hypothesis is generated by the seismic waves theory.
If you want torque calculations, you better explain the seismic waves anomalies.
Until then, we are left with this:
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 have a center of gravity which is located ABOVE THE EQUATOR, given the fact that the northern hemisphere has more mass than the southern hemisphere. Then, the accepted law of universal gravitation tells us that the Earth should revolve facing the Sun with its North Pole.
Convince yourself that the northern hemisphere is indeed heavier (has more mass) than its southern counterpart:
"The area of land in the northern hemisphere of the earth is to the area of land in the southern hemisphere as three is to one.
The mean weight of the land is two and three-quarter times heavier than that of water; assuming the depth of the seas in both hemispheres to be equal, the northern hemisphere up to sea level is heavier than the southern hemisphere, if judged by sea and land distribution; the earth masses above sea level are additional heavy loads - we include here all the mountains/hills.
But this unequal distribution of masses does not affect the position of the earth, as it does not place the northern hemisphere with its face to the sun. A “dead force” like gravitation could not keep the unequally loaded earth in equilibrium. Also, the seasonal distribution of ice and snow, shifting in a distillation process from one hemisphere to the other, should interfere with the equilibrium of the earth, but fails to do so."
This is the reason why heliocentrists will immediately resort to torque calculations involving the molten outer core. However, this is no longer an option since they cannot explain the seismic waves anomalies which defy the accepted molten outer core theory.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
That doesn't look like a calculation to me, sandokhan.
-
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!
-
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. ;)
-
Your claim is not based on evidence, it's just your opinion.
It is the opinion issued by modern science:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/earth-and-planetary-sciences/southern-hemisphere
"The Southern Hemisphere has much less land than the Northern Hemisphere, resulting in weaker asymmetries at its lower boundary."
Therefore, the northern hemisphere has more mass then the southern hemisphere.
(https://geology.com/world/cia-world-map.gif)
For Pangea, the situation is even more clear:
(https://dw8stlw9qt0iz.cloudfront.net/keI3yKe71sKQmrGpR8_b3GQBVI4=/2000x2000/filters:format(jpeg):quality(75)/curiosity-data.s3.amazonaws.com/images/content/thumbnail/standard/428349e2-f649-4b22-f095-12cdaf6c239b.png)
Therefore, my calculations are correct.
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.
Here are more references which do acknowledge that the northern hemisphere has more mass than the southern hemisphere:
https://sciencing.com/differences-between-northern-southern-hemisphere-8260091.html
"The vast majority of the Earth’s land mass is also found in the Northern Hemisphere."
https://www.climatecentral.org/news/in-global-warming-northern-hemisphere-is-outpacing-the-south-15850
"The Northern Hemisphere has more land and less ocean than the Southern Hemisphere."
Then, we are dealing with a massive defiance of Newton's law of universal gravitation: since the northern hemisphere has more mass than the southern hemisphere, the North Pole should be facing the Sun.
-
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.
-
Your claim is based on a calculation that you refuse to perform.
It is also the claim of modern science.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/earth-and-planetary-sciences/southern-hemisphere
"The Southern Hemisphere has much less land than the Northern Hemisphere, resulting in weaker asymmetries at its lower boundary."
Therefore, the northern hemisphere has more mass then the southern hemisphere.
https://sciencing.com/differences-between-northern-southern-hemisphere-8260091.html
"The vast majority of the Earth’s land mass is also found in the Northern Hemisphere."
https://www.climatecentral.org/news/in-global-warming-northern-hemisphere-is-outpacing-the-south-15850
"The Northern Hemisphere has more land and less ocean than the Southern Hemisphere."
Then, we are dealing with a massive defiance of Newton's law of universal gravitation: since the northern hemisphere has more mass than the southern hemisphere, the North Pole should be facing the Sun.
By direct observation we can see that m1 > m2:
(https://geology.com/world/cia-world-map.gif)
m1 = mass of the northern hemisphere
m2 = mass of the southern hemisphere
Clearly we disagree on this point.
Then, you are a flat earth believer, since you deny that the northern hemisphere is heavier than the southern hemisphere.
-
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? :(
-
You are still calculating northern and southern hemispheres from geometric center, and forces don't act there, they act in the center of mass.
-
Your claim is based on a calculation that you refuse to perform.
It is also the claim of modern science.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/earth-and-planetary-sciences/southern-hemisphere
"The Southern Hemisphere has much less land than the Northern Hemisphere, resulting in weaker asymmetries at its lower boundary."
Therefore, the northern hemisphere has more mass then the southern hemisphere.
I think that you're operating under the assumption that land mass is a significant portion of the earth's mass. That is not true. The earth's crust (where all of the land mass resides) is relatively light and very thin compared to the inner layers of the earth, therefore has very little effect on the overall center of gravity.
-
Are you guys really discussing mass difference of an oblate spheroid with 3980 miles radius and the average ocean dept of only 1.7 mile?
Even without water, it is only 1/2341 (0.000427)... an orange fruit skin has 26x more irregularities. 45mm radius, 0.5mm dept, 1/90, 2341/90 = 26.
An average rock (quartz) density goes from 2.0 to 2.6g/cm3, meaning worst case of 2.6 denser than water. It means the 1.7 mile average dept filled with water could be converted to the equivalent of (1.7 * (1-(1/2.6)) = 1.7 * 0.61 = 1.05 mile without water, what squeezes the ratio to 1.05 / 3980 = (1/3804) 0.000263, the orange skin = 42x has more pronounced irregularities.
Gravity acceleration measured by (Nasa Grace and European Goce) satellites results don't follow exactly the land/ocean topography, there are other factors involved, like metals in rocky formation, etc.
Just the oblate difference from Polar to Equatorial radius give us 14 miles, that is almost 14 times more pronounced than the conversion rock to water in oceans. It means the oblate kills any discussion about ocean dept and missing rocky mass. This extra mass around equatorial line could even represents why Earth is orbiting the Sun oriented as it is.
(https://www.aei.mpg.de/2219293/original-1518435688.jpg?t=eyJ3aWR0aCI6MzIyLCJoZWlnaHQiOjE5MSwiZml0IjoiY3JvcCIsIm9ial9pZCI6MjIxOTI5M30=--930e3a88d5ec14e04243cc66acdabcc6703df2b9)
-
Your bravado is noticeable, but it amounts to nothing at all.
It doesn't matter if you go to the fourth decimal place (difference between F1 and F2), Newton's law of universal gravitation still applies.
As you might have noticed by now, mainstream science acknowledges that the northern hemisphere has more mass than its southern counterpart.
This extra mass around equatorial line could even represents why Earth is orbiting the Sun oriented as it is.
Not so fast.
GPS satellites DO NOT register/record either the orbital Coriolis effect (not to mention the Sagnac efect) or the solar gravitational potential.
This is the reason why mainstream relativists are abandoning Einstein's version of relativity and are embracing MLET (modified Lorentz ether theory).
If you want to claim that the Earth is orbiting the Sun, you must explain the missing orbital Coriolis effect and the missing solar gravitational potential in relation to the GPS satellites.
-
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.
-
Your bravado is noticeable, but it amounts to nothing at all.
It doesn't matter if you go to the fourth decimal place (difference between F1 and F2), Newton's law of universal gravitation still applies.
As you might have noticed by now, mainstream science acknowledges that the northern hemisphere has more mass than its southern counterpart.
This extra mass around equatorial line could even represents why Earth is orbiting the Sun oriented as it is.
From what I understand, the earth's axial tilt is more likely due to the intense bombardment during its early history rather than the mass distribution on its surface.
https://www.universetoday.com/75897/why-is-the-earth-tilted/
GPS satellites DO NOT register/record either the orbital Coriolis effect (not to mention the Sagnac efect) or the solar gravitational potential.
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.
-
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 (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
-
If you want to claim that the Earth is orbiting the Sun, you must explain the missing orbital Coriolis effect and the missing solar gravitational potential in relation to the GPS satellites.
So, you are saying that if I tie a small rock to a string, rotate it horizontally inside an airplane (centrifugal force) while flying at steady 600km/h West, the centripetal force I feel on my hand would change according to the direction the rock in the rotation East or West? Would I feel pulling bumps? Yeah, frame of reference is really confusing for some people.
I posted weeks ago, the car's tire in movement, touching the ground is literally stopped, the upper part is moving forward at twice the speed of the car. For lots of people this is really confusing, for the car wheel shaft reference it is pretty simple.
Even so, wanting to consider Sun's frame of reference, Earth's gravity acceleration is much more pronounced (1600+) upon everything over the planet, even satellites, than Sun's gravitational pull, 5.9E-3m/s², 0.0006 x Earth's gravitational acceleration.
-
So it is Sandokhans clear assertion that the Earth is not in orbit around the Sun. Fair enough. What remains constant in all of this is the evidence available to us. We all see the same things and events in the heavens. What is different is our interpretations of what we see. To some the Earth appears stationary at the centrer with the whole of the heavens rotating around it. To others this movement can be equally explained by what is the modern heliocentric model.
I would be interested to find out what Sandokhans explanation is for the trigonometric parallax observed in stars. The back and forth motion occurs over the same period as the Earths orbit around the Sun.