The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: Thork on March 20, 2015, 09:47:18 PM
-
A question for round earthers. I'm going to use round earth theory, please explain the answer.
So ... simple question. Why round? The earth isn't round. It bulges at the equator due to centripetal forces (apparently). And yet its speed is only 1000mph at the equator. The sun has a circumference of 2.7 million miles, revolves in just 27 days at equator giving a speed of around 42,000 mph. Its also not solid - its barely liquid. Why doesn't it bulge under these massive centripetal forces? I can't wrap my head around how gravity might keep it so round and allow no bulging at all. It isn't intuitive. Can you balance the equation to show either how little it bulges or explain why it doesn't? There appeared to be no bulge at all in this morning's eclipse for example.
Lets see how good you are at explaining your own theories before shooting holes in ours.
By the way, I have e-mailed NASA directly and have been told I will receive an answer from one of their astrophysicists in the next 2 weeks. So, I'm not going to accept any old crap from you. I will have the 'official' shill answer in due course.
Any of you think you know enough to explain this?
-
he sun has a circumference of 2.7 million miles, revolves in just 27 days at equator giving a speed of around 42,000 mph. Its also not solid - its barely liquid. Why doesn't it bulge under these massive centripetal forces? I can't wrap my head around how gravity might keep it so round and allow no bulging at all. It isn't intuitive. Can you balance the equation to show either how little it bulges or explain why it doesn't? There appeared to be no bulge at all in this morning's eclipse for example.
Well, for starters, it's not perfectly round, if you'll accept a shill source (http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2008/02oct_oblatesun/).
It is much more round than everything else in the Solar System mind you, simply because it's huge: it has a lot of mass. (Mass is density times volume, if you're accepting REer science for the purposes of this question, you can't deny its volume is tremendous). High mass means high gravity: for further evidence, accepting the RE view again, it has enough gravity to cause several also huge objects to orbit around it.
Its gravity is enough to deal with any bulging: while, as you say, it should bulge more easily, those bulges would be cancelled out and drawn back in just as easily. It works both ways.
So, I'm not going to accept any old crap from you. I will have the 'official' shill answer in due course.
I won't pretend to be as expert as an astrophysicist who's studied the topic for years, I doubt anyone could, but this seems about right.
-
No, you can't relate it all to gravity. I have a speed 42 times as fast, I have a gravity only 28 times as much.
Think about this, the gravity of the Sun at the surface is 28 times the gravity of the Earth. In other words, if your scale says 100 kg on Earth, it would measure 2,800 kg if you tried to walk on the surface of the Sun.
The 'bulge' described is tiny. Your shill source picks it out perfectly.
Now it should warp far more easily. The sun is only a little more dense than water.
The density of the Sun is 1.4 grams per cubic centimeter. Just to give you a comparison, the density of water is 1 g/cm3. In other words, if you could find a pool large enough, the Sun would sink down and not float.
We aren't talking about molten iron and rock like in the centre of earth. The sun by all rights should be very squashy indeed. And its not.
-
No, you can't relate it all to gravity. I have a speed 42 times as fast, I have a gravity only 28 times as much....
We aren't talking about molten iron and rock like in the centre of earth. The sun by all rights should be very squashy indeed. And its not.
Again, you're missing the fact it works both ways. A distortion begins to form, bulges the Sun outwards: and gets dragged in by gravity immediately. It's different to the Earth, whose bulge came about when it was forming as separate specks of matter. Further, the incredible radius of the Sun will drastically reduce the centripetal force (by how said force is calculated).
-
No. The earth doesn't bulge because of when it was formed. It bulges NOW!. The bulge has been decreasing as earth has slowed (According to round earth scientists.). In fact even lunisolar precession is supposed to distort it.
You can keep guessing if you like.
Further, the incredible radius of the Sun will drastically reduce the centripetal force (by how said force is calculated).
Why did you come out with that? Have you done the maths? Why did you offer an opinion you just dreamt up as fact? The radius is not such that there would be no bulge.
-
Why did you come out with that? Have you done the maths? Why did you offer an opinion you just dreamt up as fact? The radius is not such that there would be no bulge.
A large radius reduces the centripetal force greatly: and you're again ignoring the fact the Sun's 'squashiness' makes correction far easier.
Right now I'm about to sign off and sleep, so any maths I do would be unreliable at best. It seems plain that dividing by a larger number (a larger radius) would give a smaller force.
For that matter, though, you've said:
The sun has a circumference of 2.7 million miles, revolves in just 27 days at equator giving a speed of around 42,000 mph
You're also an order of magnitude too high there. 27 days gives 27*24 hours, divide 2.7 million by that you get 4166mph.
-
Correction? Does the sun stop to have a correction?
No maths. How convenient. ::)
Shall we put this to bed?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g_9n3cOL690&t=22
No one can explain why the sun doesn't squash. It doesn't match the maths and physics. At the end you get some lame offering on that video, but the guy says it himself. Our model does not work.
Soooo, I can't check the bulge of earth because I'm stood on it. I apply the same reasoning to the sun because I can see that and no one has an answer cos the model breaks. Round Earth theory is pretty terrible.
-
Now it should warp far more easily. The sun is only a little more dense than water.
The density of the Sun is 1.4 grams per cubic centimeter. Just to give you a comparison, the density of water is 1 g/cm3. In other words, if you could find a pool large enough, the Sun would sink down and not float.
We aren't talking about molten iron and rock like in the centre of earth. The sun by all rights should be very squashy indeed. And its not.
Actually, the density of the sun is a gradient.
http://thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=5613
(http://qdl.scs-inc.us/2ndParty/Images/Charles/Sun/Density_wbg.png)
-
Also, wouldn't the sun's bulge form a positive feedback loop of sorts? The more it bugled, the further its bulge would be from the other bits of sun and therefore the less pull it would have holding it causing it to bulge further and have less bits of sun holding it and so on?
-
Also, wouldn't the sun's bulge form a positive feedback loop of sorts? The more it bugled, the further its bulge would be from the other bits of sun and therefore the less pull it would have holding it causing it to bulge further and have less bits of sun holding it and so on?
Since the sun takes about 3-4 weeks to rotate on its axis, I doubt that the centrifugal force would be enough to feed back on itself as you describe. Besides, the sun already sheds mass due to coronal mass ejections, solar wind, etc.
-
Correction? Does the sun stop to have a correction?
Ok, awake now, time to repeat myself. One, the velocity you came up with is an order of magnitude too big. Two, gravity acts whether or not the Sun moves: it's pulling in just as much.
Thank you for the new resource, but that video adds to what I was planning to say. There are several forces at work, rather than just gravity or just the centripetal force. Let's compare.
Outwards forces: centripetal (which is calculated by mv2/r, so clearly the huge radius the Sun possesses will make the force less than you seem to suppose), and the (negligible) gravity of other celestial objects.
Inwards forces: gravity. There's also a frictional force to lessen motion.
Then we get onto fluid dynamics. The Sun is not a solid, like the Earth: the two cannot be compared at all. Fluid dynamics is a very specific branch of mechanics. One result of this is the fact that, as a fluid, different parts of the Sun rotate at different rates: we observe this with, for example, the poles rotating far slower than the equator. One possible explanation for your roundness is that this occurs inside the Sun as well, which is entirely reasonable: and differing rates of acceleration will completely alter the model you've proposed. In addition, you have to deal with the effects the extreme heat conditions will have, and the incredible magnetic field of the Sun.
What you've given is an oversimplification. That's not going to give a completely accurate picture, nor will it ever.
Further, you're making an argument from ignorance: the fact we don't know the details of something, does not mean everything we know is wrong.
There are multiple possible explanations, none of which require assumptions: it's just not exactly the easiest thing to send a probe for a dip inside the Sun to figure out which is the case. From what a little bit of research unearthed, the two main contenders are the varying rotational rate of fluid, and the effects a magnetic field has on plasma (gas ionized by extreme heat). The latter seems to be the most popular: and you can't reject it just because you'd rather make a post on a forum complaining about science.
Your argument is that it's impossible, not that it's unexplained: clearly, that's simply untrue.
-
So I have an astrophysicist telling me it should bulge and no one knows why it doesn't. And I have the usual chattering classes on here telling me its simple and they fully understand it. ::)
I thought this would be a nice thread, because it shows no matter how flawed round earth theory is, the rabid Round Earthers here will defend whatever they see as fact and shout down any suggestion that RET doesn't have the answers. Thanks for not disappointing me. It just convinces me further that most of you have no idea what you are talking about and will never have the humility to admit it.
-
So I have an astrophysicist telling me it should bulge and no one knows why it doesn't. And I have the usual chattering classes on here telling me its simple and they fully understand it. ::)
I thought this would be a nice thread, because it shows no matter how flawed round earth theory is, the rabid Round Earthers here will defend whatever they see as fact and shout down any suggestion that RET doesn't have the answers. Thanks for not disappointing me. It just convinces me further that most of you have no idea what you are talking about and will never have the humility to admit it.
I'm fond of bringing up the "sniper accounting for coriolis effect, but planes not having to" dichotomy. It's mindboggling that they can hold two plainly contradicting ideas and argue for each. Last time they told me that coriolis doesn't effect a plane because the plane has engines; as if having engines magically made something immune to coriolis.
At its simplest, it all boils down to round-earthers "having all the answers." It doesn't matter if the answers are true, it only matters that they have them. And that, for most people, is enough.
-
Agreed. I think this thread is done. :)
-
So I have an astrophysicist telling me it should bulge and no one knows why it doesn't. And I have the usual chattering classes on here telling me its simple and they fully understand it. ::)
Was there even a point to this thread if you were just going to find a video and then pull an argument from authority to nix any possible debate or counterarguments? The discussion was essentially over as soon as you posted that video, then.
-
Indeed it was. I don't need to let every debate go 45 pages.
I have made the point that the sun contradicts the equatorial bulge theory that I am supposed to accept on face value, casting doubt on whether our own planet has such a phenomenon ... or is indeed a whirling ball at all. When I applied Zetetic principles to the theory, (I actually wondered as I watched the moon perfectly fit over the sun a few days ago) and thought, what is the odds they both bulge the same amount being as their densities, revolution speeds and temperatures are so vastly different? Unlike the posters of this site, I can use google.
This is not flat earth debate.
I asked the question, then supplied the answer. I merely wished to show round earth theory faltering ... and whilst doing so, show how the posters on this site would defend vociferously, any old cobblers NASA dreams up as an explanation to get their globular nonsense past the public.
Why would you ask if there was a point to the thread? This is the flat earth society. I pointed out another flaw in round earth theory. Am I only allowed to do that on tentative matters where the great unwashed can muddy the water and toss around ad hominems for hundreds of posts? No. This thread has a point.
-
I have made the point that the sun contradicts the equatorial bulge theory that I am supposed to accept on face value, casting doubt on whether our own planet has such a phenomenon ... or is indeed a whirling ball at all.
When you can show superheated plasma should behave identically to the Earth, which has far smaller size and gravitational pull, your point may be relevant.
-
Who says the sun is made of superheated plasma? NASA? Based on calculations they made from their perverse 93 million mile distance versus heat? Yeah, jog on. ::) Make a new thread if you want to discuss the composition of the sun. This thread is about equatorial bulging or lack thereof.
-
Who says the sun is made of superheated plasma? NASA? Based on calculations they made from their perverse 93 million mile distance versus heat? Yeah, jog on. ::) Make a new thread if you want to discuss the composition of the sun. This thread is about equatorial bulging or lack thereof.
Plus spectroscopy, but that's not the point.
If you're trying to show a hole in modern physics, you need to actually accept what it says, otherwise what you're saying has precisely no relevance.
You argued that the fact the Sun does not have an equatorial bulge like the Earth means we should question what such physics say about the Earth. See the quote in my previous post. The simple fact is, you can make no such comparisons because they are completely different states of affairs.
To quote my previous post:
From what a little bit of research unearthed, the two main contenders are the varying rotational rate of fluid, and the effects a magnetic field has on plasma (gas ionized by extreme heat). The latter seems to be the most popular: and you can't reject it just because you'd rather make a post on a forum complaining about science.
Suffice to say, there are possible explanations, and the lack of bulging does not automatically discredit RET. You have to take everything into account, not just the few bits that are convenient for you.
If you're going to argue, as it sounds, that the fact this is a complex topic somehow renders it untrustworthy, there's no way to carry on a discussion. People have expertise in different things, it is supremely paranoid to conclude that the fact you haven't spent years studying something and it doesn't adhere to your personal understanding, means it must be wrong and everyone saying it must be liars.
-
it is supremely paranoid to conclude that the fact you haven't spent years studying something and it doesn't adhere to your personal understanding, means it must be wrong and everyone saying it must be liars.
The hypocrisy is astounding.
-
it is supremely paranoid to conclude that the fact you haven't spent years studying something and it doesn't adhere to your personal understanding, means it must be wrong and everyone saying it must be liars.
The hypocrisy is astounding.
That would be a valid statement, if what I said was not the basis for what you believe. That renders your foundation rotten, and your comparison invalid yet again.
But, regardless, make a new thread if you want to discuss credulity and credible sources. This thread is about equatorial bulging, or a lack thereof.
-
There is superheated plasma under the Earth's crust according to modern RET.
-
There is superheated plasma under the Earth's crust according to modern RET.
Which does not make up the entirety of the Earth, nor is it remotely at the same temperatures, so the comparison's still pretty pointless. (And I'm not certain that it's actually plasma, for that matter).
-
This thread perfectly describes the difference between RE'ers and FE'ers. RE'ers are so convinced of their correctness that they think it's impossible for them to lose a debate about anything even vaguely related to FET/RET. This is how you get angry noobs fervently denying the existence of the Equivilence Principle, etc. It's completely unfathomable to them that they might just be wrong.
-
It's completely unfathomable to them that they might just be wrong.
Oh, I'm happy to admit I'm wrong, I'm just not going to do it for no reason. The most extreme conclusion Thork could get from this line of reasoning is "Physics isn't complete," which no one denies.
There are two possible explanations for why someone's mind wouldn't change. First, as you say, they're so convinced they refuse to concede: or, second, the arguments intended to make them change their mind just aren't all that great.
Don't assume it's necessarily the former.
-
Who says the sun is made of superheated plasma? NASA? Based on calculations they made from their perverse 93 million mile distance versus heat? Yeah, jog on. ::) Make a new thread if you want to discuss the composition of the sun. This thread is about equatorial bulging or lack thereof.
Scepti? It all makes sense.
-
Oh, I'm happy to admit I'm wrong, I'm just not going to do it for no reason. The most extreme conclusion Thork could get from this line of reasoning is "Physics isn't complete," which no one denies.
How come "Physics isn't complete," is an acceptable answer for round-earthers but any unknown variable in flat-earth science is clear and irrefutable proof that the flat-earth theory is totally wrong in all facets and forms imaginable?
This is another example of round-earth debating failures. The clear double standards they hold to their theory. It's to jarring to question these super-mores they have so they will argue literally anything that aligns with their preconceptions. In this common case, they say that they don't know an answer and that's fine (which it is) while also saying that flat-earth theory needs to be 100% complete and unify all of physics under one cohesive model.
Whats-more, they can't even see the irony
-
Oh, I'm happy to admit I'm wrong, I'm just not going to do it for no reason. The most extreme conclusion Thork could get from this line of reasoning is "Physics isn't complete," which no one denies.
How come "Physics isn't complete," is an acceptable answer for round-earthers but any unknown variable in flat-earth science is clear and irrefutable proof that the flat-earth theory is totally wrong in all facets and forms imaginable?
Because there's a difference between an as yet unfilled gap, and a contradiction.
The number of things that occur in the Sun (extreme heat, predominantly plasma, fluidity, wild magnetic field...) mean there are a lot of things that can and do explain the supposed problem: and even if there weren't proposed explanations, the comparison to the Earth would still fall for that very reason.
Whereas if you look at proprosed problems with FET you have, for example, sunsets: and I'm not saying that's a good argument, I'm purposefully choosing a less convincing one, but if it was in fact true that under FET the sunsets we observe would not occur, that is a contradiction: that is not a gap waiting to be filled.
There is a huge difference between "Unknown," and "Untrue." Asking after the outside of the ice wall, the formation of the flat Earth, maps, etc: those are questions that target unknowns. Even with no answer, it doesn't render FET untrue, merely incomplete.
A contradiction for RET would be, for example, measuring a distance far shorter than what should be the case on a sphere, or a photo showing that the Sun is indeed a spotlight, or looking over the horizon with a telescope. Those things would contradict RET, and certainly they could be explained, it's just a matter of whether it's explained within the knowledge we already have, or if it needs more to be supposed.
-
Is there really a difference between "unknown" and "untrue"? Because RE'ers sure like to conflate the two when it comes to their own theory. After all, without this basic conflation they couldn't even claim to have a working model of gravitation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity#Anomalies_and_discrepancies).
-
Is there really a difference between "unknown" and "untrue"? Because RE'ers sure like to conflate the two when it comes to their own theory.
There's a huge difference.
Again, 'untrue' would be if two pieces of knowledge contradicted one another. 'Unknown' would be if there were a few oddities, and when there are many available explanations: you can't use an example of something distant and incredibly hard to examine, and use it as an example of a contradiction, because it simply isn't. Especially gravity, I wish you luck finding any scientists who'll say gravity is a complete theory.
Further, the term 'unknown' is applied heavily due to context. For example, a flower pot in my garden was dug up several times in winter, over several weeks. I didn't see what did it, but I'm fairly sure soil didn't spontaneously jump out of it. I didn't see anything go and dig into it, and it was more vigorous than you'd expect from the cats I've seen around, should I have concluded that my belief that soil didn't jump out of flowerpots on its own power was untrue? Or should I merely say that the cause is unknown, as many likely and possible explanations exist?
-
So NASA got back to me.
Hi and thanks for your question. I'm guessing you are referring to a study that received a lot of press a few years ago in which scientists used an instrument on the Solar Dynamics Observatory spacecraft to precisely measure the shape of the Sun's photosphere (the visible part of the Sun). They found that the Sun is round to about 7.6 parts per million, which is about 10% less than the expected value of 8.3 parts per million. While this discrepancy is statistically significant (it's larger than the errors in the individual estimates) and hints at some addition physical processes being involved in determining the shape of the Sun, it hardly justifies the headlines like "Perfectly Round Sun Baffles Scientists".
Someone isn't happy. So the Maths doesn't add up and the pesky press have noticed. Very good.
As to why the Sun is so round to begin with, we asked our colleague Dean in the Heliophysics division here at Goddard for his explanation. The degree to which the Sun deviates from a sphere is called its "oblateness" and for a simple model of a fluid object, it is determined by the balance between the centrifugal "force" and the gravitational force at the Sun's surface. The gravitational force will tend to make the object round but a larger centrifugal force will make it more oblate. If you plug in values for the Sun's mass, radius, and rotation rate, you'll find that the centrifugal force is only about 20 parts per million of the gravitational force. With some correction factors, this gives us the 8.3 parts per million prediction described above.
Yes, I knew that before I asked the question. ::)
And he signs of with a bit of special pleading and some wild conjecture
Effects that have been proposed to explain the discrepancy between the model and measurement include turbulence in the convective cycles that operate between the photosphere and deeper layers of the Sun as well as forces due to the magnetic field at the surface of the Sun.
Now naturally I have a few follow up questions but right at the bottom of the email it reads
PLEASE DO NOT REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE
Replies will not be read or forwarded.
Its nice they replied though. :)
-
Well, according to your standards, 10% error is not that bad. After all, you're completely happy with a 100% wrong theory of the earth.
-
After all, you're completely happy with a 100% wrong theory of the earth.
No, I'm not. That's why I joined the flat earth society. 8)
-
Is there really a difference between "unknown" and "untrue"? Because RE'ers sure like to conflate the two when it comes to their own theory.
There's a huge difference.
Again, 'untrue' would be if two pieces of knowledge contradicted one another.
Did you deliberately ignore the latter half of my post where I show an example of two pieces of RET "knowledge" contradicting one another and yet being dismissed as an unknown or an "incomplete theory", or was that an honest mistake on your part? You seem to have done a lot of restating and repeating yourself (a trend for you, I see), but didn't actually address the issue.
-
Is there really a difference between "unknown" and "untrue"? Because RE'ers sure like to conflate the two when it comes to their own theory.
There's a huge difference.
Again, 'untrue' would be if two pieces of knowledge contradicted one another.
Did you deliberately ignore the latter half of my post where I show an example of two pieces of RET "knowledge" contradicting one another and yet being dismissed as an unknown or an "incomplete theory", or was that an honest mistake on your part? You seem to have done a lot of restating and repeating yourself (a trend for you, I see), but didn't actually address the issue.
Could you explicitly state what pieces of RE knowledge you believe are contradicting each other? All I see is a link to a Wikipedia page on gravity. I assume you are probably referring to the Galaxy spin curve, but would like to be sure.
-
Could you explicitly state what pieces of RE knowledge you believe are contradicting each other? All I see is a link to a Wikipedia page on gravity. I assume you are probably referring to the Galaxy spin curve, but would like to be sure.
I directly linked to a section which outlines discrepancies between observation and the currently-dominant theory. The only way I could make it more explicit is by copy-pasting it here.
-
Could you explicitly state what pieces of RE knowledge you believe are contradicting each other? All I see is a link to a Wikipedia page on gravity. I assume you are probably referring to the Galaxy spin curve, but would like to be sure.
I directly linked to a section which outlines discrepancies between observation and the currently-dominant theory. The only way I could make it more explicit is by copy-pasting it here.
When I follow your link on my phone it goes directly to the title, not a specific section. No need to be so touchy about it.
-
What I want to know is why FEers think the earth is flat when we can see that the moon, sun and other planets are round.
-
What I want to know is why FEers think the earth is flat when we can see that the moon, sun and other planets are round.
My room contains 5 pieces of furniture. 4 of them are chairs. How dare you try to tell me that the 5th item might be a table?!
This logic is ludicrous. The Earth is not other planets. You can't ascertain anything about the Earth's shape merely from the shape of other celestial bodies.
To quote myself from 2 years back:
The Earth is not other planets. Other planets' characteristics may suggest things about the Earth, but they don't have to. Similarly, so far we have not seen a planet with intelligent life, so why does the Earth have intelligent life? Surely that's completely illogical since everything around us disproves our existence!
-
What I want to know is why FEers think the earth is flat when we can see that the moon, sun and other planets are round.
My room contains 5 pieces of furniture. 4 of them are chairs. How dare you try to tell me that the 5th item might be a table?!
This logic is ludicrous. The Earth is not other planets. You can't ascertain anything about the Earth's shape merely from the shape of other celestial bodies.
To quote myself from 2 years back:
The Earth is not other planets. Other planets' characteristics may suggest things about the Earth, but they don't have to. Similarly, so far we have not seen a planet with intelligent life, so why does the Earth have intelligent life? Surely that's completely illogical since everything around us disproves our existence!
The logic is not ludicrous. I agree that the fact that the other planets are round is not proof that the earth is round. It is definitely an indicator though. And for that matter, what shape do you really think the earth is? You say it's flat but what about the other dimension? Is it a cube? An icosahedron? People who say the earth is round do not mean that it is 100% spherical, only that it is somewhat spherical. Any three dimensional object has the characteristic that if you keep going in one direction you will eventually come back to your starting point. So when you say the earth is flat what exactly do you mean?
-
Well, that is one good question the problem is it cant be round since its a ball of gas So it should be wide not a perfect Round shape you know of.
-
Well, that is one good question the problem is it cant be round since its a ball of gas So it should be wide not a perfect Round shape you know of.
Why?
-
There is superheated plasma under the Earth's crust according to modern RET.
Magma not Plasma...
Magma https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magma
Plasma https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_(physics)