Offline sised

  • *
  • Posts: 1
    • View Profile
100% undebunkable
« on: May 27, 2018, 02:36:13 PM »
100% undebunkable proof that the earth is not flat. but read the proof before you ban me please:
if the earth was flat we would be able to see all stars from all sides of the earth. which dosen't happen. also you claim that objects that are far away can't been seen beacause human eye records ~450 Mp but then how do we see the stars that are supposed to be 0.5 from the lenght of the plate away from us. also planes aren't effected of the atmosphere beacause the gravity is stronger. we don't feel the earth's movement beacause we cannot feel speed. we can feel speed changes. take an experiment: use an elevator and close your eyes. no press the button to move the elevator. you can feel that  the elevator moves at first but then you have no idea. u still feel something beacause the elevator dosen't move at 100% stable speeds. give me proof that the earth is flat and i will debunk it for you  ;)

*

Offline Dr David Thork

  • *
  • Posts: 5186
  • https://onlyfans.com/thork
    • View Profile
Re: 100% undebunkable
« Reply #1 on: May 27, 2018, 08:10:27 PM »
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.
« Last Edit: May 27, 2018, 08:12:55 PM by Baby Thork »
Rate this post.      👍 6     👎 1

Max_Almond

Re: 100% undebunkable
« Reply #2 on: May 27, 2018, 09:12:38 PM »
Bearing in mind, of course, that although 1040 mph (the speed of the earth's rotation at the equator) sounds pretty fast, and undoubtedly would be in a car, it's a little misleading: revolutions per minute would be more like it, and that equates to 0.0069rpm.

Not very fast at all.

Re: 100% undebunkable
« Reply #3 on: May 27, 2018, 09:40:42 PM »
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.
You don't need extra energy to keep something spinning, when something is spinning you need a force to stop it.
What force would stop it spinning? It actually is slowing down, but not enough to be noticable.

Quote
Round earth theory is stupid.
It's not really a theory. You not understanding stuff doesn't mean that stuff is stupid.
And given that you guys can't even make a map which works or agree whether there's one pole or two (Spoiler: There's two, both have been explored) and relies on the idea that thousands of people in multiple countries in multiple industries are all lying for no well explained reason, it's a bit right to call RE stupid.
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"

*

Offline Dr David Thork

  • *
  • Posts: 5186
  • https://onlyfans.com/thork
    • View Profile
Re: 100% undebunkable
« Reply #4 on: May 27, 2018, 09:54:40 PM »
Bearing in mind, of course, that although 1040 mph (the speed of the earth's rotation at the equator) sounds pretty fast, and undoubtedly would be in a car, it's a little misleading: revolutions per minute would be more like it, and that equates to 0.0069rpm.

Not very fast at all.
You are looking to move a molecule of air 40,000km every day! That's a hell of a distance for it to travel. And that takes power.


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.
You don't need extra energy to keep something spinning, when something is spinning you need a force to stop it.
What force would stop it spinning? It actually is slowing down, but not enough to be noticable.
Actually you need to exert a force any time you want to see a rate of change to anything. Whether that be air slowing down to go away from the equator, speeding up moving towards it, or speeding up as it gets higher in the atmosphere.

And given that you guys can't even make a map
How about you map out the whole of the USA and come back to us, we'll do the rest of earth after your start.  ::)

thousands of people in multiple countries in multiple industries are all lying for no well explained reason, it's a bit right to call RE stupid.
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/40/Appeal-to-Popularity

Rate this post.      👍 6     👎 1

Re: 100% undebunkable
« Reply #5 on: May 27, 2018, 10:20:06 PM »
How about you map out the whole of the USA and come back to us, we'll do the rest of earth after your start.  ::)
Why would I do that? It's been done.
And done reliably enough that the entire transport industry seems to get us round fine both domestically and internationally.
What basis do you have for thinking the extensive mapping work already done of the world is wrong?

And I agree the globe earth isn't true because it's popular, it's popular because it's true, observably so and verified in numerous ways.
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"

*

Offline rabinoz

  • *
  • Posts: 1441
  • Just look South at the Stars
    • View Profile
Re: 100% undebunkable
« Reply #6 on: May 28, 2018, 02:08:12 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.
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 say "As I move north and south, that air needs to decelerate to a full stop".
That is not quite correct. If you move north (in the Northern Hemisphere) your east-west motion must slow down imperceptible, but only by about 1/6 mph for each mile you move.
"That air needs to decelerate to a full stop" only if the air is being moved all the way to the pole by some other effect, maybe differential heating.
But there would be no "rush"!

There is no relative motion that can cause any slippage. Look at a wheel of your car travelling at 60 mph.
The wheels of my car have a radius of about 15 inches, so over a distance of 15 inches the tyre and wheel's peripheral speed is going from 60 miles per hour to zero.
Why doesn't the wheel tear itself to pieces? There is no relative motion causing slippage.
On the surface, it does seem a sort of a paradox. As we move out from the centre the linear speed is changing but obviously, the can be no "rubbing together" as it is entirely due to rotation.

Air caused to travel from one latitude to another does need to change velocity and this is the well known Coriolis effect, the cause of rotating high and low-pressure weather systems.

Quote from: Baby Thork
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?
There are no "bodies of air rubbing against each other" from the above cause. So what you think you "know about bodies of air rubbing against each other" is irrelevant.
But clean dry air "bodies of air rubbing against each other" do not cause static, though air with fine dust particles can charge the dust.

There are "bodies of air rubbing against each other" from temperature differences caused by the uneven heating from the sun.

Quote from: Baby Thork
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?
And your whole premise is still false.

Quote from: Baby Thork
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 same answer as for the air. It needs some other effect to cause the water to move.
You ask, "What speeds the sea up as currents go towards the equator?" Before you ask that you need to ask what is going to make those currents go towards the equator?
The answer to that is that initially it is density changes caused by generally warmer temperature in the tropics and cooler water away from the equator.
And what "speeds the sea up as currents go towards the equator" is energy from the rotating earth but this water has to go back to the slower speed nearer the poles eventually.
That slowing down of the water puts that energy back into the rotating earth.

It's all nicely in balance and initially caused by heat from the sun. Were there no heat from the sun (or other source) it would all settle down.

Quote from: Baby Thork
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.
There is "no extra energy being added in to maintain spinning" but there is energy added to initially cause the air and ocean currents.

Quote from: Baby Thork
Or is the earth a perpetual motion machine?
No it is not "a perpetual motion machine" and it is measurably slowing down, but mainly due to tidal forces from the moon.
Quote
Over the past 27 centuries, the average day has lengthened at a rate of about +1.8 milliseconds (ms) per century, a British research team concluded in the journal Proceedings of the Royal Society A

Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2016-12-earth-days-longer.html#jCp

Quote from: Baby Thork
Round earth theory is stupid.
So what holds the sun, moon, planets and stars above your flat earth continually circling around up there with no means of support.
Is it magic?
Are they tethered by an invisible rope to an invisible pole over the North Pole reaching to Polaris?
And what keeps them rotating up there. It cannot be Newton's first law of motion - that would say that they should continue in straight lines.

So I could claim with equal justification that your Flat Earth hypothesis is stupid.
I won't do that because many people seem to sincerely believe it to be so and calling belief in the flat earth stupid would be tantamount to calling those people stupid.

Offline Tontogary

  • *
  • Posts: 431
    • View Profile
Re: 100% undebunkable
« Reply #7 on: May 28, 2018, 04:43:26 AM »

Actually you need to exert a force any time you want to see a rate of change to anything. Whether that be air slowing down to go away from the equator, speeding up moving towards it, or speeding up as it gets higher in the atmosphere.

So what energy causes the sun to speed up and slow down, and change path all the time then? It must do to have a longer path in winter than the summer in the same time frame. (Ie 24 hours)

And the m,on, what energy is causing that to change direction and speed?

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.

Offline hexagon

  • *
  • Posts: 192
    • View Profile
Re: 100% undebunkable
« Reply #8 on: May 28, 2018, 07:55:37 AM »
Via k_B * T temperature of gas molecules is equivalent to a certain amount of kinetic energy and therefor a certain velocity. A value of 1m/s or 86400 Km/day at room temperature is a very conservative estimate...

Anyway, the earth and its atmosphere is a closed system, you don't feel it's speed because you, the air and everything else is moving with the same speed with you. You only feel accelerations, but the outward acceleration due to earth's rotation is even at the equator so tiny compared to gravity, that you can measure it, but not feel it.     

Re: 100% undebunkable
« Reply #9 on: May 28, 2018, 01:09:19 PM »
Anyway, the earth and its atmosphere is a closed system, you don't feel it's speed because you, the air and everything else is moving with the same speed with you.

But they do not form a closed system, on the contrary.

"The law of conservation of angular momentum applies to rigid bodies. Not to liquids and not to gases. The reason for this necessity is that imparting a torque to a molecule in a rigid body affects the whole body, which is not the case with the other two states.

Consider the World, without an atmosphere, spinning in a vacuum. If we then wrap a non-moving atmosphere around it, that atmosphere will serve to damp the spin of the World."

The supposed frictional force, inversely proportional to altitude, would have dampened the very rotation of the Earth, from the very start.

The Earth-Atmosphere-Sun system is NOT a closed system, therefore it has not has reached some sort of equilibrium in terms of its angular momentum.

"The World would constantly be losing the energy that it possessed as a result of its rotation, to an atmosphere which would heat up due to this friction and dissipate this extra energy by radiating most of it out into space.

Hence, the interaction of a rotating World with an atmosphere is always going to be a case of losing angular momentum (i.e., angular velocity, since the mass of the World does not change) to the atmosphere, because of friction. Friction generates heat. Heat gets dissipated.
Some of this dissipated heat will leave the World/atmosphere system in the form of radiated energy. The World will slow down and stop."

Let us go to the textbook on atmospheric science.

Conservation of momentum in the atmosphere is a complex process, but basically the earth/ocean/atmosphere system must conserve angular momentum. Angular momentum is transferred from the earth to the atmosphere by the tropical easterlies, where air is rotating faster than the earth and transferred from the atmosphere back to the earth by the westerlies in the mid-latitudes, where the wind is rotating slower than the earth.

"Now, the 'conventional' treatment of our atmosphere is that these molecules interact with one another, such that the angular momentum of the whole is conserved. This is wrong for at least two reasons: There are thermal convection currents within the atmosphere which have a great effect on the air molecules. These convection currents have absolutely nothing to do with angular momentum (these are perhaps the greatest reason why the so-called 'closed system' is invalid). They are due to the incoming heat from the Sun, heating up different  components of the World and its atmosphere at different rates, depending upon composition. These convection currents will act so as to disrupt any alleged angular momentum of our considered molecule. Their effect upon our molecule will be totally overwhelming, compared with any possible transference of angular momentum. ANY 'ANGULAR MOMENTUM' THAT OUR MOLECULE MAY HAVE HAD WILL BE CHANGED BY THE ACTION OF SOMETHING ORIGINATING OUTSIDE OF THE WORLD/ATMOSPHERE SYSTEM.

Once changed, the total angular momentum of the whole atmosphere (if such a thing existed) would be changed. If it has changed, then it is not conserved. I hope that you will all see that there is no way that total angular momentum can be conserved and that we are not talking of any form of theoretical 'closed system.' The second reason is closely tied to the first. As I have said many times now, angular momentum is an attribute of rigid bodies. That is how it is DEFINED. Note that ALL the particles within a rigid body have the SAME angular frequency about a COMMON axis of rotation, irrespective of how far each of them is from that axis. Angular momentum does not apply to gases, nor, in general, to fluids."


Friction can only be invoked for the first FEW HUNDREDS OF METERS above the ground: modern science cannot explain how the rest of the layers of the atmosphere travel at the same speed, since a LATERAL GRAVITATIONAL FORCE, called the restoring force paradox, would be needed (you cannot make reference to the Coriolis force, since that phenomenon takes place on a flat earth as well, the rotation of the ether field):

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg819201#msg819201


*

Offline Dr David Thork

  • *
  • Posts: 5186
  • https://onlyfans.com/thork
    • View Profile
Re: 100% undebunkable
« Reply #10 on: May 28, 2018, 02:03:26 PM »
Yeah, air doesn't work like that.

From aerodynamics ...

Consider the velocity of air at the boundary layer of an aerofoil.

I'll use NASA as a source as you all have a boner for them.


Note at the point where the air meets the wing ... or in our case the surface of earth, the RELATIVE velocity is zero. So at the equator the air is 1040mph at the surface. And as you rise away from the surface, that air slips (a shear force). The velocity changes as the air isn't solid. This slipping gives rise to phenomenon known as 'skin friction drag'.



This is a force in the opposite direction to the spin of the earth. The result is a huge drag force acting on the earth at its surface all the time. What powers the earth to overcome this drag? An aircraft has an engine.

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. 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). 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.
« Last Edit: May 28, 2018, 02:30:56 PM by Baby Thork »
Rate this post.      👍 6     👎 1

Offline hexagon

  • *
  • Posts: 192
    • View Profile
Re: 100% undebunkable
« Reply #11 on: May 28, 2018, 03:14:36 PM »
The earth is not like the wing of an airplane moving through a static atmosphere, the atmosphere is moving together with the earth, like the air inside a train. It's not that in the back of the train is all the air and in the front is vacuum...

Of course the coupling between the earth and the atmosphere is not perfectly rigid. And you have many other effects, e.g. due to thermal gradients and so on leading to all sorts of atmospheric effects. But it is rigid enough that we do not feel a permanent storm blowing in our face from one direction.   

*

Offline Dr David Thork

  • *
  • Posts: 5186
  • https://onlyfans.com/thork
    • View Profile
Re: 100% undebunkable
« Reply #12 on: May 28, 2018, 03:27:21 PM »
Now air and water are rigid? As Tom would say ... "Look out of your window". This is demonstrably false.

You have a rate of change. A change of momentum. That is a loss. What overcomes these huge losses for billions of years?

change of momentum (in kg m/s) = resultant force (in newton, N) × time for which it acts (in s)

I've got my mass (weight of all the water and air on earth) and the distance it moves every day, I have my time (6.5 billion years) ... balance the equation please. Where is the power for this change of momentum coming from? Solve my drag equation.
« Last Edit: May 28, 2018, 03:33:03 PM by Baby Thork »
Rate this post.      👍 6     👎 1

Re: 100% undebunkable
« Reply #13 on: May 28, 2018, 03:58:47 PM »
the atmosphere is moving together with the earth, like the air inside a train.

The Earth does not have an outer casing. No comparison to a ride on a train can be made at all.

How does the atmosphere rotate along with the Earth, after the few hundreds of meters which involve friction?

Obviously, a lateral gravitational force would be needed to accomplish that.

Here is the catch.

Friction is inversely proportional to altitude.

The new lateral gravitational force MUST BE directly proportional to altitude.

"The field of gravity is such that its strength at a point, s1, within the atmosphere is inversely proportional to (R + h)^2. Such rapid decrease in field strength with altitude helps to ensure that our atmosphere is not compacted into a thin layer at sea level. In contrast, the strength of the supposed new field would be directly proportional to (R + h) and thus increase with altitude."

https://web.archive.org/web/20140903074446/http://www.realityreviewed.com/Restoring%20forces.htm


It is of outmost importance now to comprehend how the Michelson-Gale experiment was faked.

Otherwise, all the RE have to do is to remind everyone here of this formula:



A very simple formula.

We have the measured fringe interference, the area of the interferometer, the wavelength of the light, the speed of light: then the angular velocity of the rotation of the Earth can be easily calculated.

This is the argument ALWAYS used in extremis by the RE to save the situation.

And, in the past, there was NOTHING the FE could do about it.

Now, the Michelson-Gale experiment has been debunked thoroughly: it actually recorded the CORIOLIS effect and not the rotational Sagnac, nor the orbital Sagnac.


https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2024144#msg2024144 (ten consecutive messages)

Re: 100% undebunkable
« Reply #14 on: May 28, 2018, 04:33:29 PM »
Now air and water are rigid? As Tom would say ... "Look out of your window". This is demonstrably false.

You have a rate of change. A change of momentum. That is a loss. What overcomes these huge losses for billions of years?

change of momentum (in kg m/s) = resultant force (in newton, N) × time for which it acts (in s)

I've got my mass (weight of all the water and air on earth) and the distance it moves every day, I have my time (6.5 billion years) ... balance the equation please. Where is the power for this change of momentum coming from? Solve my drag equation.

you are thinking about the problem incorrectly.  all you're really doing here is asking about the linear momentum of one component of a rotating mass with constant angular momentum.  that's unnecessary since there are no external forces applying a (significant) torque to the earth.

http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/I_18.html
Quote
Now the total force on all the particles is the same as the external force. Why? Although there are all kinds of forces on the particles because of the strings, the wigglings, the pullings and pushings, and the atomic forces, and who knows what, and we have to add all these together, we are rescued by Newton’s Third Law. Between any two particles the action and reaction are equal, so that when we add all the equations together, if any two particles have forces between them it cancels out in the sum; therefore the net result is only those forces which arise from other particles which are not included in whatever object we decide to sum over.

fwiw the force that changes the linear momentum of particles in the atmosphere (and stuff on earth) is gravity.
I have visited from prestigious research institutions of the highest caliber, to which only our administrator holds with confidence.

*

Offline Dr David Thork

  • *
  • Posts: 5186
  • https://onlyfans.com/thork
    • View Profile
Re: 100% undebunkable
« Reply #15 on: May 28, 2018, 04:41:42 PM »
Which is a very nice theory without friction, heating, electrostatic build up and of course the change of velocities ... this explanation invokes perpetual motion ... a motion RE advocates for a perpetually turning earth. That doesn't fit with demonstrable physics.

You can't just keep balancing forces one against the other and claim there are no losses. The universe doesn't work like that.
Rate this post.      👍 6     👎 1

*

Offline Bobby Shafto

  • *
  • Posts: 1390
  • https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdv72TaxoaafQr8WD
    • View Profile
    • Bobby Shafto YouTube Channel
Re: 100% undebunkable
« Reply #16 on: May 28, 2018, 04:46:08 PM »
Earth's rotational rate is slowing.

*

Offline Dr David Thork

  • *
  • Posts: 5186
  • https://onlyfans.com/thork
    • View Profile
Re: 100% undebunkable
« Reply #17 on: May 28, 2018, 04:48:34 PM »
Earth's rotational rate is slowing.
Unfortunately that is "explained away" by yet more terrible theorising regarding tidal locking of the moon.

I still have an issue here to be solved with a ball turning in syrup forever and ever.
Rate this post.      👍 6     👎 1

*

Offline Bobby Shafto

  • *
  • Posts: 1390
  • https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdv72TaxoaafQr8WD
    • View Profile
    • Bobby Shafto YouTube Channel
Re: 100% undebunkable
« Reply #18 on: May 28, 2018, 04:58:36 PM »
However it's explained, it's not true that the earth's rotation is unchanging or that it will continue "forever and ever."

*

Offline Dr David Thork

  • *
  • Posts: 5186
  • https://onlyfans.com/thork
    • View Profile
Re: 100% undebunkable
« Reply #19 on: May 28, 2018, 05:27:08 PM »
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.
Rate this post.      👍 6     👎 1