#### Bobby Shafto

• 1390
##### Re: 100% undebunkable
« Reply #40 on: May 28, 2018, 08:23:29 PM »
A solid spinning body in a fluid medium.
Just say "the atmosphere" is that's the answer.

Your analogy of an apple spun in a pool is that the water is to the apple as the atmosphere is to earth?
« Last Edit: May 28, 2018, 08:30:54 PM by Bobby Shafto »

#### Dr David Thork

• 5179
• https://onlyfans.com/thork
##### Re: 100% undebunkable
« Reply #41 on: May 28, 2018, 08:27:40 PM »
Fluids are fluids, and also don't forget you also have the sea ... Coriolis effects both, right?

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

I think an apple in a pool is very fair. This is fluid dynamics. I can equate different viscosity, temperatures and densities using non-dimension coefficients like the Reynolds number. As long as I realise that all Newtonian fluids behave roughly the same (air and water included), I can swap them about at will and expect similar results. Ie drag.
Rate this post.      👍 6     👎 1

#### garygreen

• 2944
##### Re: 100% undebunkable
« Reply #42 on: May 28, 2018, 08:32:22 PM »
All you are demonstrating is that you've never heard of thermodynamics and you seem to think angular momentum = perpetual motion. A lossless phenomenon because you used a science phrase.

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

A solid spinning body in a fluid medium.

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

the earth's atmosphere spins with the earth.  it is not fixed inside a larger container.  the whole system is spinning.
I have visited from prestigious research institutions of the highest caliber, to which only our administrator holds with confidence.

#### Bobby Shafto

• 1390
##### Re: 100% undebunkable
« Reply #43 on: May 28, 2018, 09:05:47 PM »
I think an apple in a pool is very fair.
That's probably because you think of the earth as spinning in a fluid medium. But that's not the analogy of the earth and its atmosphere (or it's seas).

#### AllAroundTheWorld

• 5811
##### Re: 100% undebunkable
« Reply #44 on: May 28, 2018, 10:13:26 PM »
Isn't the earth an apple in a vacuum with a very thin layer (compared with the size of the apple) of gas (not liquid, far less dense) around it?
Not much would stop that spinning for a very long time, and the earth is a lot more massive than an apple of course and thus has a lot more momentum.

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

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

PS: All that said, Thork is about a million times better to debate with than Tom, he seems a lot more honest and willing to make intelligent arguments.
Tom: "Claiming incredulity is a pretty bad argument. Calling it "insane" or "ridiculous" is not a good argument at all."

TFES Wiki Occam's Razor page, by Tom: "What's the simplest explanation; that NASA has successfully designed and invented never before seen rocket technologies from scratch which can accelerate 100 tons of matter to an escape velocity of 7 miles per second"

#### Dr David Thork

• 5179
• https://onlyfans.com/thork
##### Re: 100% undebunkable
« Reply #45 on: May 28, 2018, 11:06:24 PM »
nothing in thermodynamics says that an object can't spin for a billion years.
Oooooooh, you want to stand by that?

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

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

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

PS: All that said, Thork is about a million times better to debate with than Tom, he seems a lot more honest and willing to make intelligent arguments.
You aren't allowed to have favourites here. We are all God's children.
Rate this post.      👍 6     👎 1

#### garygreen

• 2944
##### Re: 100% undebunkable
« Reply #46 on: May 28, 2018, 11:12:18 PM »
nothing in thermodynamics says that an object can't spin for a billion years.
Oooooooh, you want to stand by that?

yes.

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

basically gravity plus friction plus pressure.

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

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

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

I have visited from prestigious research institutions of the highest caliber, to which only our administrator holds with confidence.

#### Curious Squirrel

• 1338
##### Re: 100% undebunkable
« Reply #47 on: May 29, 2018, 04:01:51 AM »
But if this is thought ridiculous then you need to have some explanation as to how the sun and planets and stars hover above the disc of the earth, how a near, small sun is powered and what causes it to move in its orbit and keep on changing orbit to cause the seasons.
Whoa whoa whoa. I have an explanation and it is celestial gearing, but that is a whole off-topic thread of its own. This is an investigation of whether earth spins or not. Let's keep it that simple.
As noted this is a touch off-topic, but I would love to either be directed to a thread that goes more in depth, or for you to make one discussing this. Information on this is woefully lacking in the wiki, and I've yet to come across someone who has gone much in depth on it.

#### rabinoz

• 1441
• Just look South at the Stars
##### Re: 100% undebunkable
« Reply #48 on: May 29, 2018, 04:24:46 AM »
Before you rush in and claim the round earth doesn't have a boundary layer ... read this
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/earth-and-planetary-sciences/boundary-layer-flow

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

Quote from: Baby Thork
Now to the horizontal.

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

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

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

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

Well its been spinning for 6.5 billion years. That's as good as forever.

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

I want to see an apple spin in a swimming pool for just 24 hours. I'll then let you off the other 6.5 billion years.
The earth is not spinning in water or even in air. It is spinning in an almost perfect vacuum.
"At the orbit of the Earth, the solar wind has an average density ofabout 6 ions/cm3." That's very close to being a "perfect vacuum".

#### Tontogary

• 431
##### Re: 100% undebunkable
« Reply #49 on: May 29, 2018, 07:21:22 AM »
Well its been spinning for 6.5 billion years. That's as good as forever.

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

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

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

Or even better, how it accelerates, slows down, moves direction and reverses direction each year. Where is all that energy coming from? And the stars moving? How is that happening? What is moving them?

Also, if you haven't heard of bronies before, that reflects poorly on your understanding of the world that surrounds you. It's practically impossible not to know about them.

#### hexagon

• 192
##### Re: 100% undebunkable
« Reply #50 on: May 29, 2018, 08:39:57 AM »
The whole discussion shows a fundamental problem in how to address the problem. If you see the earth spinning inside a medium (the atmosphere), than indeed you would have a problem due to energy loss by friction at the interface between the earth surface and the medium.

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

Of course, there are a lot of complications to this picture, and you can discuss about this endlessly, but that is the very basic picture you have to start with.

#### sandokhan

• 1027
##### Re: 100% undebunkable
« Reply #51 on: May 29, 2018, 09:05:58 AM »
You have to look at whole earth-atmosphere system spinning together in the vacuum of the space.

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is an IOP article.

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

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

Even the translational local-aether model cannot be correct, since Michelson and Gale recorded the CORIOLIS EFFECT but not the rotational Sagnac effect.

#### hexagon

• 192
##### Re: 100% undebunkable
« Reply #52 on: May 29, 2018, 11:43:39 AM »
The paper is crap with no impact on the scientific discussion. The guy published some papers around the time on related topics only cross-referenced by himself. No experimental data, just speculation about effects too small to be measured. Try better...

#### sandokhan

• 1027
##### Re: 100% undebunkable
« Reply #53 on: May 29, 2018, 12:10:12 PM »
Dr. C.C. Su is one of the top experts in the world on electromagnetics:

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

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

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

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

Journal of Electromagnetic Waves and Applications:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

They have to explain the missing orbital Sagnac effect.

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

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

#### Tontogary

• 431
##### Re: 100% undebunkable
« Reply #54 on: May 29, 2018, 12:46:31 PM »
I have not read most of the above, but it seems like there is missing the “solar gravitational potential” from GPS satellites.

Is me or is this ironic that the existence of GPS satellites is being used to prove that the earth is flat, where GPS satellites could then not exist?? Or am i missing something?

Also, if you haven't heard of bronies before, that reflects poorly on your understanding of the world that surrounds you. It's practically impossible not to know about them.

#### hexagon

• 192
##### Re: 100% undebunkable
« Reply #55 on: May 29, 2018, 12:53:24 PM »
For your famous author Web of Sciences can only find 7 publications, all published between 2001 and 2006. No co-authors and only 3 citations beside self-citations. No publications in high-impact journals. Nothing... Any of our PhD students has a better reputation then this guy...

#### Bobby Shafto

• 1390
##### Re: 100% undebunkable
« Reply #56 on: May 29, 2018, 01:17:35 PM »
I have not read most of the above, but it seems like there is missing the “solar gravitational potential” from GPS satellites.

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

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

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

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

#### hexagon

• 192
##### Re: 100% undebunkable
« Reply #57 on: May 29, 2018, 01:52:02 PM »

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

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

• 3
##### Re: 100% undebunkable
« Reply #58 on: June 01, 2018, 09:35:04 PM »

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

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

In terms of not being a prominent scientist, Samuel Rowbotham has no significance in the scientific field. FEr's worship his book, but he has no credibility or status in the scientific field. If you are trying to debunk the greatest conspiracy of all time, at least have some significance towards your name.

#### I am Seeker of Truth

##### Re: 100% undebunkable
« Reply #59 on: June 03, 2018, 05:45:34 AM »
Earth is moving?

Interesting.

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

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

Or is the earth a perpetual motion machine?

Round earth theory is stupid.

Why would the air have to "decelerate to a full stop" when moving north or south?