Re: 100% undebunkable
« Reply #80 on: July 18, 2018, 12:28:33 PM »
Apparently you don't get that wind follows the RE. Is that so hard to acknowledge?
Wind is generally caused by high and low temperatures meeting, nothing to do with the spin of earth.
Wind causes friction, but why would you think it doesn't cause friction in all directions, and why can't you comprehend that wind really doesn't have the power to prevent the earth from spinning, but instead its the earth providing spin to the air.
You just don't get it.

Let me explain it differently then...

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

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

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

« Last Edit: July 18, 2018, 12:47:14 PM by SphericalEarther »

*

Offline Dr David Thork

  • *
  • Posts: 5179
  • https://onlyfans.com/thork
    • View Profile
Re: 100% undebunkable
« Reply #81 on: July 18, 2018, 12:35:15 PM »
Yeah ... no.

Go back and read my post. You have to understand the fundamentals of how wind works, specifically why we get backing and veering at various altitudes.
Rate this post.      👍 6     👎 1

*

Offline Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 3020
    • View Profile
Re: 100% undebunkable
« Reply #82 on: July 18, 2018, 12:38:02 PM »
So ... once you learn about weather properly, I want to know a) why the earth hasn't come to a stop with all this surface friction slowing it down

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

As was said;

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

They would now spin at the same rate basically forever, as there is no friction slowing them down
=============================
Not Flat. Happy to prove this, if you ask me.
=============================

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

Nearly?

*

Offline Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 3020
    • View Profile
Re: 100% undebunkable
« Reply #83 on: July 18, 2018, 12:40:44 PM »
You have to understand the fundamentals of how wind works, specifically why we get backing and veering at various altitudes.

Clearly you've been studying it for years. Clearly you haven't just picked up a couple of videos from YouTube in the last couple of hours. Clearly, you have a degree in meteorology or a similar discipline.
=============================
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: 5179
  • https://onlyfans.com/thork
    • View Profile
Re: 100% undebunkable
« Reply #84 on: July 18, 2018, 12:46:41 PM »
They would now spin at the same rate basically forever, as there is no friction slowing them down
I just linked you about 4 sources showing you that their is friction at the surface. Friction is friction. It is a force counter to the direction of a moving object. Go back and have another think. Don't tell me there is no friction, when every source says there is.

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

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

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

Below is Francis Wilson. A famous British weather forecaster ... and former British Airways pilot.

Rate this post.      👍 6     👎 1

*

Offline Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 3020
    • View Profile
Re: 100% undebunkable
« Reply #85 on: July 18, 2018, 12:54:26 PM »
Clearly I have a commercial pilots license and scored 100% in my meteorology exams. I also have a degree in Aerospace Engineering where I studied fluid dynamics and aerodynamics. What might be more helpful for me is that I have an A-level in geography which might help me bring the discussion back down to your level.  ::)

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

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

All this, including differences between Northern and Southern Hemisphere, and you still insist the world's not a globe?  Really?
=============================
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: 5179
  • https://onlyfans.com/thork
    • View Profile
Re: 100% undebunkable
« Reply #86 on: July 18, 2018, 12:56:00 PM »
Clearly I have a commercial pilots license and scored 100% in my meteorology exams. I also have a degree in Aerospace Engineering where I studied fluid dynamics and aerodynamics. What might be more helpful for me is that I have an A-level in geography which might help me bring the discussion back down to your level.  ::)

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

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

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

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

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

Pro-tip. You learn more finding flaws in RE than you ever could regurgitating it.
« Last Edit: July 18, 2018, 01:01:02 PM by Baby Thork »
Rate this post.      👍 6     👎 1

Re: 100% undebunkable
« Reply #87 on: July 18, 2018, 01:02:11 PM »
I just linked you about 4 sources showing you that their is friction at the surface. Friction is friction. It is a force counter to the direction of a moving object. Go back and have another think. Don't tell me there is no friction, when every source says there is.
You are wrong here as well. Friction isn't a counter force.

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

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

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

The atmosphere really stands no chance in a contest, and it already follows the spin of the earth. It isn't trying to slow the earth down in any way and even if it tried, if wouldn't do anything.

*

Offline Dr David Thork

  • *
  • Posts: 5179
  • https://onlyfans.com/thork
    • View Profile
Re: 100% undebunkable
« Reply #88 on: July 18, 2018, 01:04:39 PM »
Friction isn't a counter force.
I'm going to single this out as stupid comment of the week.

Rate this post.      👍 6     👎 1

*

Offline Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 9641
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: 100% undebunkable
« Reply #89 on: July 18, 2018, 01:10:16 PM »
Clearly I have a commercial pilots license and scored 100% in my meteorology exams. I also have a degree in Aerospace Engineering where I studied fluid dynamics and aerodynamics. What might be more helpful for me is that I have an A-level in geography which might help me bring the discussion back down to your level.  ::)

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

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

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

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

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

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

You learn even more figuring out how physics works on a RE than coming up with incorrect objections.
Th*rk is the worst person on this website.

Re: 100% undebunkable
« Reply #90 on: July 18, 2018, 01:15:21 PM »
Friction isn't a counter force.
I'm going to single this out as stupid comment of the week.
You just don't get it.

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

It just seems you will never get it.

*

Offline Dr David Thork

  • *
  • Posts: 5179
  • https://onlyfans.com/thork
    • View Profile
Re: 100% undebunkable
« Reply #91 on: July 18, 2018, 01:17:46 PM »
You learn even more figuring out how physics works on a RE than coming up with incorrect objections.
You think you learn more by regurgitating things you know, than you would looking at a problem and then trying to find obscurities that other people would misconceive? At that point, who knows more ... the person misconceiving or the person two steps ahead setting the pitfalls?

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

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

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

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

It just seems you will never get it.
Please stop.
« Last Edit: July 18, 2018, 01:24:51 PM by Baby Thork »
Rate this post.      👍 6     👎 1

Re: 100% undebunkable
« Reply #92 on: July 18, 2018, 01:24:00 PM »
Please stop.
Why? You seem to have this strange belief that wind tries to be stationary, always pushing against the spin of the earth in the RE model, and I'm simply explaining where you are wrong using as simple examples as I can think of.
You seem to have the wrong fundamental logic in regards to friction at least, so at least correct that notion as that seems to be your primary argument, or explain why friction is a counter force as you claim.
« Last Edit: July 18, 2018, 01:26:02 PM by SphericalEarther »

*

Offline Dr David Thork

  • *
  • Posts: 5179
  • https://onlyfans.com/thork
    • View Profile
Re: 100% undebunkable
« Reply #93 on: July 18, 2018, 01:29:17 PM »
Please stop.
Why? You seem to have this strange belief that wind tries to be stationary, always pushing against the spin of the earth in the RE model, and I'm simply explaining where you are wrong.
You seem to have the wrong fundamental logic in regards to friction at least, so at least correct that notion as that seems to be your primary argument, or explain why friction is a counter force as you claim.
Dude, I used to also be an Aerodynamicist for Airbus. I helped design aircraft like the A380 and A340. I know what friction is.

You can equate it using a drag formula.

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

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

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

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

I'm bored of this thread. It was too hard for the participants. You have all the answers.
Rate this post.      👍 6     👎 1

Re: 100% undebunkable
« Reply #94 on: July 18, 2018, 01:42:12 PM »
Please stop.
Why? You seem to have this strange belief that wind tries to be stationary, always pushing against the spin of the earth in the RE model, and I'm simply explaining where you are wrong.
You seem to have the wrong fundamental logic in regards to friction at least, so at least correct that notion as that seems to be your primary argument, or explain why friction is a counter force as you claim.
Dude, I used to also be an Aerodynamicist for Airbus. I helped design aircraft like the A380 and A340. I know what friction is.

You can equate it using a drag formula.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The plane with a weight of approximately 500 tons, vs the complete atmosphere of 6 quadrillion tons, will slow down the aircraft way way more than it will speed up the atmosphere.
Just like the atmosphere with a weight of 6 quadrillion tons will have basically no effect against the 6,000,000 quadrillion tons of the earth.
The atmosphere will move with the earth just like the plane will move with the air, friction at work, works both ways, biggest object wins.
« Last Edit: July 18, 2018, 01:46:43 PM by SphericalEarther »

*

Offline BillO

  • *
  • Posts: 1040
  • Huh?
    • View Profile
Re: 100% undebunkable
« Reply #95 on: July 18, 2018, 01:45:16 PM »
However, your assertion that there would some sort of wind shear going north (or south) from the equator is a fallacy.
Assuming none of the air moves ever and every atom stays exactly where it is, as though it were a solid ... you'd still be wrong. We see shear forces even in the solid and liquid of a round earth. This is why the earth bulges at the equator according to RE.
Your mixing things up here.  Yes, of of curse there are forces, and despite them adding up to only .034M/s/s, they have an effect.  I am not unaware of them.  However, that really has nothing to do with the rate at which one particle moves WRT it's neighbor.  For wind shears to occur, the rate must be larger, considerably larger, than the dynamic noise (thermal, turbulence) but it's not, it's vanishingly small.

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

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

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

Taking the derivative we get simply,

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

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

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

In fact, at it's worst the velocity gradient due to the rotation of the atmosphere is about 0.25 kph per kilometer as one leaves a pole heading toward the equator.  This diminishes rapidly to zero at the equator.
« Last Edit: July 18, 2018, 02:26:25 PM by BillO »
Quote from: Ironic Pete
I DO NOT NEED DATA, I'M PRETTY SURE I'M RIGHT!!!!

You think something is true, and that's good enough for you.

*

Offline Dr David Thork

  • *
  • Posts: 5179
  • https://onlyfans.com/thork
    • View Profile
Re: 100% undebunkable
« Reply #96 on: July 18, 2018, 01:55:36 PM »
Drag... Not friction...
Drag on an aircraft is made of 3 components.

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

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

So in this case, friction is drag. A small component would be heat but I can approximate that to zero as well. I already gave the answer to this problem.
Rate this post.      👍 6     👎 1

Re: 100% undebunkable
« Reply #97 on: July 18, 2018, 02:04:00 PM »
Drag... Not friction...
Drag on an aircraft is made of 3 components.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It is as though you only think one direction. That the air will affect the earth with friction while the earth would not affect the air, while it is mostly opposite, times a million.
« Last Edit: July 18, 2018, 02:09:00 PM by SphericalEarther »

*

Offline Dr David Thork

  • *
  • Posts: 5179
  • https://onlyfans.com/thork
    • View Profile
Re: 100% undebunkable
« Reply #98 on: July 18, 2018, 02:09:46 PM »
Yeah, its you not reading.

You would get skin friction drag. You wouldn't get form drag because you are in the vacuum of space. I gave you about 4 links previously of people telling you you get friction at the surface.
Rate this post.      👍 6     👎 1

Re: 100% undebunkable
« Reply #99 on: July 18, 2018, 02:25:39 PM »
Yeah, its you not reading.

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

Try watching this again:


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

Can you at least acknowledge that friction works both ways?
« Last Edit: July 18, 2018, 02:30:03 PM by SphericalEarther »