*

Offline BlueMoon

  • *
  • Posts: 127
  • NASA Defender
    • View Profile
You wouldn't know how fast you're going
« on: March 10, 2016, 03:27:32 AM »
Flat-earthers often say that it's unbelievable that we would be moving through space so fast. They say that the earth seems solid and stationary, and we would be able to feel if it was whizzing through space or spinning at 1000 mph. 

However, this is not the case.  Consider for a moment that you are riding in a bus.  While it is moving at a constant speed, you get up and move to the other side.  Why don't you get thrown to the back?  The reason is that you retain momentum, and you can only feel acceleration. 

Now, about that "1000 mph" statistic.  The equation for centripetal/centrifugal acceleration is a=v2/r.  The radius r is 6371 km, or 6371000 m.  THe velocity v is about 1000 mph, or 460 m/s.  So our function is 4602/6371000 which gives us...
.033 m/s2
For comparison, acceleration due to gravity at the poles is 9.83 m/s2.  You certainly wouldn't be flung off by that, but it has been measured. 

So why does the atmosphere stay with the earth's surface?  Well, it too has initial momentum.  This confines it to earth's reference frame. 
This initial momentum also explains the Coriolis effect.  Since the surface is spinning faster at the equator, and slower toward the poles, air that moves away from the equator is deflected to the east relative to the surface.  So, if you have an area of low pressure, air is drawn toward it, but air from the equator is deflected east, and air from the poles is deflected west.  That causes hurricanes to rotate clockwise in the southern hemisphere and counterclockwise in the northern hemisphere.  The deflection is measurable and consistent, and weather forecasters have to take it into account in their simulations.  It is also visible in the bands and storms of Jupiter. 

So what do you, the Flat Earth Society, have to say about that?  Can you find a better explanation that accounts for the weaker gravity at the equator and the Coriolis effect?  Good luck. 
Aerospace Engineering Student
NASA Enthusiast
Round Earth Advocate
More qualified to speak for NASA than you are to speak against them

*

Offline rabinoz

  • *
  • Posts: 1436
  • Just look South at the Stars
    • View Profile
Re: You wouldn't know how fast you're going
« Reply #1 on: March 10, 2016, 04:04:52 AM »
So what do you, the Flat Earth Society, have to say about that?  Can you find a better explanation that accounts for the weaker gravity at the equator and the Coriolis effect?  Good luck.
I can't speak for TFES, but here is what they say:
Quote
The Coriolis Effect
Wind Currents
The Wind Currents are put into gradual motion by the attraction of the Northern and Southern Celestial Systems, which are grinding against each other as gears at the equator line.

Water Currents
As for water currents on a large scale; they're simply gradually put into motion by the winds. Water currents in the Northern Hemisphere will tend to rotate in one direction while currents in the Southern Hemisphere will tend to turn in another direction.
It does get just a bit hilarious with: grinding against each other as gears at the equator line. Doesn't seem to fit with highs and lows rotating in opposite directions.

Quote from: the Wiki
Celestial Gravitation
Celestial Gravitation is a part of some Flat Earth models which involve an attraction by all objects of mass on earth to the heavenly bodies. This is not the same as Gravity, since Celestial Gravitation does not imply an attraction between objects of mass on Earth. Celestial Gravitation accounts for tides and other gravimetric anomalies across the Earth's plane.

Mind it seems a bit ridiculous that the small sun and moon and tiny lights in the sky cause "Celestial Gravitation", but the almost infinitely more massive earth does not have any gravitation. But, who are we to doubt the Wiki?

*

Offline Roundy

  • Abdicator of the Zetetic Council
  • *
  • Posts: 1756
    • View Profile
Re: You wouldn't know how fast you're going
« Reply #2 on: March 10, 2016, 05:11:26 AM »
Mind it seems a bit ridiculous that the small sun and moon and tiny lights in the sky cause "Celestial Gravitation", but the almost infinitely more massive earth does not have any gravitation. But, who are we to doubt the Wiki?

What?  ??? Did someone here say that the Earth doesn't exhibit gravitation according to FET?  If so, I apologize that they misled you.
Electro-Theologist, Poet, Philosopher, Musician, Etymologist, Egyptologist, Astro-Theologist, Geocentrist, Flat Earther, and Collector of Rare Books.

*

Offline Woody

  • *
  • Posts: 241
    • View Profile
Re: You wouldn't know how fast you're going
« Reply #3 on: March 10, 2016, 05:22:28 AM »
Mind it seems a bit ridiculous that the small sun and moon and tiny lights in the sky cause "Celestial Gravitation", but the almost infinitely more massive earth does not have any gravitation. But, who are we to doubt the Wiki?

What?  ??? Did someone here say that the Earth doesn't exhibit gravitation according to FET?  If so, I apologize that they misled you.

I think it depends on which site he is referring to.  I have read some post I do not remember where saying the force we think is gravity is a result of air pressure and outright deny the existence of gravity.  He may also be referring to UA saying the force we measure is the result of acceleration and not mass.  Which does not out right say gravity does not exist, but at least to me implies it.  If gravity existed and exerted the force as we are told it would make since the Earth would form into a spheroid.

*

Offline Roundy

  • Abdicator of the Zetetic Council
  • *
  • Posts: 1756
    • View Profile
Re: You wouldn't know how fast you're going
« Reply #4 on: March 10, 2016, 05:35:13 AM »
Mind it seems a bit ridiculous that the small sun and moon and tiny lights in the sky cause "Celestial Gravitation", but the almost infinitely more massive earth does not have any gravitation. But, who are we to doubt the Wiki?

What?  ??? Did someone here say that the Earth doesn't exhibit gravitation according to FET?  If so, I apologize that they misled you.

I think it depends on which site he is referring to.  I have read some post I do not remember where saying the force we think is gravity is a result of air pressure and outright deny the existence of gravity.  He may also be referring to UA saying the force we measure is the result of acceleration and not mass.  Which does not out right say gravity does not exist, but at least to me implies it.  If gravity existed and exerted the force as we are told it would make since the Earth would form into a spheroid.

Who said anything about gravity?  ???
Electro-Theologist, Poet, Philosopher, Musician, Etymologist, Egyptologist, Astro-Theologist, Geocentrist, Flat Earther, and Collector of Rare Books.

*

Offline BlueMoon

  • *
  • Posts: 127
  • NASA Defender
    • View Profile
Re: You wouldn't know how fast you're going
« Reply #5 on: March 10, 2016, 05:39:39 AM »
Mind it seems a bit ridiculous that the small sun and moon and tiny lights in the sky cause "Celestial Gravitation", but the almost infinitely more massive earth does not have any gravitation. But, who are we to doubt the Wiki?

What?  ??? Did someone here say that the Earth doesn't exhibit gravitation according to FET?  If so, I apologize that they misled you.

I think it depends on which site he is referring to.  I have read some post I do not remember where saying the force we think is gravity is a result of air pressure and outright deny the existence of gravity.  He may also be referring to UA saying the force we measure is the result of acceleration and not mass.  Which does not out right say gravity does not exist, but at least to me implies it.  If gravity existed and exerted the force as we are told it would make since the Earth would form into a spheroid.

Who said anything about gravity?  ???
Pretty sure I did in the OP.
Aerospace Engineering Student
NASA Enthusiast
Round Earth Advocate
More qualified to speak for NASA than you are to speak against them

*

Offline Roundy

  • Abdicator of the Zetetic Council
  • *
  • Posts: 1756
    • View Profile
Re: You wouldn't know how fast you're going
« Reply #6 on: March 10, 2016, 05:41:11 AM »
Mind it seems a bit ridiculous that the small sun and moon and tiny lights in the sky cause "Celestial Gravitation", but the almost infinitely more massive earth does not have any gravitation. But, who are we to doubt the Wiki?

What?  ??? Did someone here say that the Earth doesn't exhibit gravitation according to FET?  If so, I apologize that they misled you.

I think it depends on which site he is referring to.  I have read some post I do not remember where saying the force we think is gravity is a result of air pressure and outright deny the existence of gravity.  He may also be referring to UA saying the force we measure is the result of acceleration and not mass.  Which does not out right say gravity does not exist, but at least to me implies it.  If gravity existed and exerted the force as we are told it would make since the Earth would form into a spheroid.

Who said anything about gravity?  ???
Pretty sure I did in the OP.

We weren't talking about the OP, we were talking about a side comment by rabinoz that had little to do with the OP.
Electro-Theologist, Poet, Philosopher, Musician, Etymologist, Egyptologist, Astro-Theologist, Geocentrist, Flat Earther, and Collector of Rare Books.

*

Offline rabinoz

  • *
  • Posts: 1436
  • Just look South at the Stars
    • View Profile
Re: You wouldn't know how fast you're going
« Reply #7 on: March 10, 2016, 06:05:28 AM »
Mind it seems a bit ridiculous that the small sun and moon and tiny lights in the sky cause "Celestial Gravitation", but the almost infinitely more massive earth does not have any gravitation. But, who are we to doubt the Wiki?
What?  ??? Did someone here say that the Earth doesn't exhibit gravitation according to FET?  If so, I apologize that they misled you.
You might like to make up your own definitions, but the generally accepted definition seems to be: gravity is the gravitational field of the Earth (above its surface) and gravitation can describe the the gravitational field the general term.

Though I know we do often see "gravity" loosely applied to other objects as in the Moon's gravity.

But, what you say then gets back to how there can be any perceptible "Celestial Gravitation" on the earth's surface, yet none from the almost infinitely more massive earth. And if the Earth does exhibit gravitation according to FET cab we calculate its strength using Newton's Law of Gravitation, and if not how can it be calculated?

*

Offline Roundy

  • Abdicator of the Zetetic Council
  • *
  • Posts: 1756
    • View Profile
Re: You wouldn't know how fast you're going
« Reply #8 on: March 10, 2016, 06:59:55 AM »
Mind it seems a bit ridiculous that the small sun and moon and tiny lights in the sky cause "Celestial Gravitation", but the almost infinitely more massive earth does not have any gravitation. But, who are we to doubt the Wiki?
What?  ??? Did someone here say that the Earth doesn't exhibit gravitation according to FET?  If so, I apologize that they misled you.
You might like to make up your own definitions, but the generally accepted definition seems to be: gravity is the gravitational field of the Earth (above its surface) and gravitation can describe the the gravitational field the general term.

Though I know we do often see "gravity" loosely applied to other objects as in the Moon's gravity.


Gravitation is the tendency for some objects to be attracted to other objects.  "Gravity" is the generally accepted (and wrong) explanation for the tendency according to RET.  They are indeed two different things.  Celestial gravitation exists... celestial "gravity" does not.  The Earth exhibits gravitation (the most widely accepted explanation being universal acceleration), it does not exhibit "gravity".  I hope that clears up the confusion.
Electro-Theologist, Poet, Philosopher, Musician, Etymologist, Egyptologist, Astro-Theologist, Geocentrist, Flat Earther, and Collector of Rare Books.

*

Offline Panzerfaust

  • *
  • Posts: 25
  • So You Think
    • View Profile
Re: You wouldn't know how fast you're going
« Reply #9 on: March 10, 2016, 07:03:50 AM »
Mind it seems a bit ridiculous that the small sun and moon and tiny lights in the sky cause "Celestial Gravitation", but the almost infinitely more massive earth does not have any gravitation. But, who are we to doubt the Wiki?
What?  ??? Did someone here say that the Earth doesn't exhibit gravitation according to FET?  If so, I apologize that they misled you.
You might like to make up your own definitions, but the generally accepted definition seems to be: gravity is the gravitational field of the Earth (above its surface) and gravitation can describe the the gravitational field the general term.

Though I know we do often see "gravity" loosely applied to other objects as in the Moon's gravity.


Gravitation is the tendency for some objects to be attracted to other objects.  "Gravity" is the generally accepted (and wrong) explanation for the tendency according to RET.  They are indeed two different things.  Celestial gravitation exists... celestial "gravity" does not.  The Earth exhibits gravitation (the most widely accepted explanation being universal acceleration), it does not exhibit "gravity".  I hope that clears up the confusion.

I'm still a bit lost. How can attraction be selective?

*

Offline BlueMoon

  • *
  • Posts: 127
  • NASA Defender
    • View Profile
Re: You wouldn't know how fast you're going
« Reply #10 on: March 10, 2016, 07:13:49 AM »
Mind it seems a bit ridiculous that the small sun and moon and tiny lights in the sky cause "Celestial Gravitation", but the almost infinitely more massive earth does not have any gravitation. But, who are we to doubt the Wiki?
What?  ??? Did someone here say that the Earth doesn't exhibit gravitation according to FET?  If so, I apologize that they misled you.
You might like to make up your own definitions, but the generally accepted definition seems to be: gravity is the gravitational field of the Earth (above its surface) and gravitation can describe the the gravitational field the general term.

Though I know we do often see "gravity" loosely applied to other objects as in the Moon's gravity.


Gravitation is the tendency for some objects to be attracted to other objects.  "Gravity" is the generally accepted (and wrong) explanation for the tendency according to RET.  They are indeed two different things.  Celestial gravitation exists... celestial "gravity" does not.  The Earth exhibits gravitation (the most widely accepted explanation being universal acceleration), it does not exhibit "gravity".  I hope that clears up the confusion.
Then why do the moon and other satellites follow the same laws when they travel around the earth, as the earth does when travelling around the sun?  And why do these same rules apply to the other planets and their moons?  Furthermore, why can we apply those laws to our own motion here on earth, as well as the tides? "Celestial gravitation" is a bogus explanation, and definitely doesn't pass Occam's Razor.
Aerospace Engineering Student
NASA Enthusiast
Round Earth Advocate
More qualified to speak for NASA than you are to speak against them

*

Offline rabinoz

  • *
  • Posts: 1436
  • Just look South at the Stars
    • View Profile
Re: You wouldn't know how fast you're going
« Reply #11 on: March 10, 2016, 08:50:05 AM »
Mind it seems a bit ridiculous that the small sun and moon and tiny lights in the sky cause "Celestial Gravitation", but the almost infinitely more massive earth does not have any gravitation. But, who are we to doubt the Wiki?
What?  ??? Did someone here say that the Earth doesn't exhibit gravitation according to FET?  If so, I apologize that they misled you.
You might like to make up your own definitions, but the generally accepted definition seems to be: gravity is the gravitational field of the Earth (above its surface) and gravitation can describe the the gravitational field the general term.

Though I know we do often see "gravity" loosely applied to other objects as in the Moon's gravity.


Gravitation is the tendency for some objects to be attracted to other objects.  "Gravity" is the generally accepted (and wrong) explanation for the tendency according to RET.  They are indeed two different things.  Celestial gravitation exists... celestial "gravity" does not.  The Earth exhibits gravitation (the most widely accepted explanation being universal acceleration), it does not exhibit "gravity".  I hope that clears up the confusion.
Please come up some with actual evidence (that is not pure guesswork) for your selective "gravitation".
Gravitational attraction between quite a range of objects has been measured. Where do you have any evidence for your "Celestial gravitation".
I have asked many times, just what did Cavendish and the numerous others that performed similar experiments actually measure?
Go look up a bit more in: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=66062.msg1765435#msg1765435

Maybe you have something to counter the numerous measurements of "G".

Usual Flat Earth logic! The Earth looks flat, so it must be flat! Then (literally in some cases) bend all other observations to fit.

Re: You wouldn't know how fast you're going
« Reply #12 on: March 10, 2016, 05:07:19 PM »
Are you the same guy that guy exposed as a shill by wildheretic?

*

Offline BlueMoon

  • *
  • Posts: 127
  • NASA Defender
    • View Profile
Re: You wouldn't know how fast you're going
« Reply #13 on: March 10, 2016, 06:31:09 PM »
Are you the same guy that guy exposed as a shill by wildheretic?
Depends on what you mean by "exposed as a shill."  If you mean "kicked off due to a misunderstanding," then yes.  He thought I was three different people simply because I posted some replies from the airport while I was traveling back from break, and then he was so busy patting himself on the back to realize that he was wrong.  Needless to say, he was an idiot.  It doesn't matter, though. 


But really, since this is off topic and personal, you should have PMed me. 
Aerospace Engineering Student
NASA Enthusiast
Round Earth Advocate
More qualified to speak for NASA than you are to speak against them

Re: You wouldn't know how fast you're going
« Reply #14 on: March 10, 2016, 07:06:32 PM »
Can you tell me which principle makes our atmosphere basically an "encapsulated" entity? Ie: Why does the atmosphere not taper out in inverse squared fashion as described by gravitation. I think that is important to understand, as one would have to assume the atmosphere is the "vehicle" we're in that is moving otherwise, a bird should be able to fly 1,000 mph faster to the west.

*

Offline BlueMoon

  • *
  • Posts: 127
  • NASA Defender
    • View Profile
Re: You wouldn't know how fast you're going
« Reply #15 on: March 10, 2016, 10:00:55 PM »
Can you tell me which principle makes our atmosphere basically an "encapsulated" entity? Ie: Why does the atmosphere not taper out in inverse squared fashion as described by gravitation. I think that is important to understand, as one would have to assume the atmosphere is the "vehicle" we're in that is moving otherwise, a bird should be able to fly 1,000 mph faster to the west.
The atmosphere doesn't taper out by the inverse square law because it is being held against the surface by gravity.  It extends away from the surface because of pressure. 
If I understand you correctly, the "vehicle" you're thinking of is the reference frame of the surface or atmosphere. 
Aerospace Engineering Student
NASA Enthusiast
Round Earth Advocate
More qualified to speak for NASA than you are to speak against them

Re: You wouldn't know how fast you're going
« Reply #16 on: March 10, 2016, 10:07:31 PM »
Can you tell me which principle makes our atmosphere basically an "encapsulated" entity? Ie: Why does the atmosphere not taper out in inverse squared fashion as described by gravitation. I think that is important to understand, as one would have to assume the atmosphere is the "vehicle" we're in that is moving otherwise, a bird should be able to fly 1,000 mph faster to the west.
The atmosphere doesn't taper out by the inverse square law because it is being held against the surface by gravity.  It extends away from the surface because of pressure. 
If I understand you correctly, the "vehicle" you're thinking of is the reference frame of the surface or atmosphere.

Why is there a defined edge? Why does the ozone sit above our regular gaseous mixture that is a lot less dense than it? I'm just trying to understand how gravity holds our atmosphere and you have given yourself a lot of praise so you're surely qualified to teach me a thing or two.

You say that the surface of the earth has some kind of grip on air?

*

Offline rabinoz

  • *
  • Posts: 1436
  • Just look South at the Stars
    • View Profile
Re: You wouldn't know how fast you're going
« Reply #17 on: March 11, 2016, 04:45:54 AM »
Can you tell me which principle makes our atmosphere basically an "encapsulated" entity? Ie: Why does the atmosphere not taper out in inverse squared fashion as described by gravitation. I think that is important to understand, as one would have to assume the atmosphere is the "vehicle" we're in that is moving otherwise, a bird should be able to fly 1,000 mph faster to the west.
The atmosphere doesn't taper out by the inverse square law because it is being held against the surface by gravity.  It extends away from the surface because of pressure. 
If I understand you correctly, the "vehicle" you're thinking of is the reference frame of the surface or atmosphere.

Why is there a defined edge? Why does the ozone sit above our regular gaseous mixture that is a lot less dense than it? I'm just trying to understand how gravity holds our atmosphere and you have given yourself a lot of praise so you're surely qualified to teach me a thing or two.

You say that the surface of the earth has some kind of grip on air?
I am sure you could read up on it as easily as anyone else can! But it seems that if you don't understand something you immediatley question its validity - or simply call it a fake. Most people (I hope) when they don't understand something they read up what they can on it, then make up their mind whether to question it or not.

"Why is there a defined edge? " - there is no "defined edge", the atmospheric pressure falls of roughly exponentially.
Now I'm no expert on ozone! But I would guess that ozone does not sit sit above our regular gaseous mixture, but the ozone layer is simply where most ozone is produced by ultra-violet light, which the ozone blocks (to some extent). The O3 will gradually sink, but being unstable will gradually revert to O2. See the diagram to the right.

The only ways the earth "grips" the atmosphere is gravity which keeps in on earth in the first place and drag which keeps it (generally[1]) moving at the same speed as the earth.

[1] I say generally because there are other "forces" involved mainly such as pressure differences due largely to temperatures leading to north-south winds which are diverted by the Coriolis effect. There are then numerous things (such as mountain ranges)) that lead to more complicated wind patterns.

Re: You wouldn't know how fast you're going
« Reply #18 on: March 11, 2016, 04:11:54 PM »
I was asking the NASA expert, rabinoz, thanks for volunteering though lol...

You still don't have an answer for how gravity seems to "taper off exponentially," as opposed to inverse squared distance from the surface of the earth. If your answer is pressure, density, and temperature, then why does gravity even need to be apart of the equation?


*

Offline BlueMoon

  • *
  • Posts: 127
  • NASA Defender
    • View Profile
Re: You wouldn't know how fast you're going
« Reply #19 on: March 11, 2016, 06:27:15 PM »
I was asking the NASA expert, rabinoz, thanks for volunteering though lol...

You still don't have an answer for how gravity seems to "taper off exponentially," as opposed to inverse squared distance from the surface of the earth. If your answer is pressure, density, and temperature, then why does gravity even need to be apart of the equation?


I appreciate that you see me as the NASA expert, but rabinoz is correct. 


Gravity does follow the inverse square law, and, in general, extends to infinity. 


Atmosphere has no set boundary, but does not extend to infinity.  The reason for higher air pressure at the surface is not because of stronger gravity, but because of the weight of the column of air above it.  That's where gravity comes in. 


Aerospace Engineering Student
NASA Enthusiast
Round Earth Advocate
More qualified to speak for NASA than you are to speak against them