Intelectual curiosity
« on: July 10, 2017, 02:21:47 PM »
Hello,

I'm a young engineer, due to my education I'm fairly well versed in sciences and the "traditional" theories. To be honest I'm a RE believer. Note that I said "believer", I recognize that even if I have a good understanding of the theories I think are true there is still a part of belief.

To make my point clearer :
Usually in math proofs you agree that your starting statement is true and then go on to prove your conclusion. Example : I agree that 1+1 = 2 and 1 + 1 + 1 = 3 then I conclude that 1 + 2 = 3.
I believed that 1 + 1 = 2 and 1 + 1 + 1 = 3 was true and assuming that I proved that 1 + 2 = 3.

What's nice about it is that you can use non-true/imaginary starting assumptions and create a new "math theory" still using perfectly logical thinking. Your conclusions are true assuming that your starting statement is true. Example : If we assume parallels can cross we can create elliptical and hyperbolic geometry where new theorems are true. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_postulate

As Tesla would say modern science is more about theory than experimenting.

I think that that's where FE and RE differ. FE believe the earth to be flat because of experimental evidence whereas RE base their belief on theory crafted evidence.


So rather than pushing my beliefs on you I'm more interested in understanding how FE is proven. I tried to find an example that wasn't too much theory (still a bit of math and physics involved) and as experimental as possible.

So here is an experimental proof of earth's rotation : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foucault_pendulum
How does it fit in FE theory ?




On a side note I truly respect the ingenuity of certain FE models that are very smart but I have to say thinking that NASA is lying to us to steal our money is just ridiculous.
1 year of USA defense budget is more than ALL the money spent on NASA since it's creation. I doubt that they would put so much effort in maintaining a lie on a planetary scale for so little return on investment.
Also the earth being Flat or Round doesn't change the fact that great scientific discoveries have been made thanks to NASA : http://list25.com/25-coolest-nasa-discoveries-that-changed-your-life/

So please stop the complot theory and focus on the science behind FE and RE.

Thank you for you participation =)

PS: not a native speaker so please excuse my mistakes

Re: Intelectual curiosity
« Reply #1 on: July 10, 2017, 02:38:43 PM »
Hello,

I'm a young engineer, due to my education I'm fairly well versed in sciences and the "traditional" theories. To be honest I'm a RE believer. Note that I said "believer", I recognize that even if I have a good understanding of the theories I think are true there is still a part of belief.

To make my point clearer :
Usually in math proofs you agree that your starting statement is true and then go on to prove your conclusion. Example : I agree that 1+1 = 2 and 1 + 1 + 1 = 3 then I conclude that 1 + 2 = 3.
I believed that 1 + 1 = 2 and 1 + 1 + 1 = 3 was true and assuming that I proved that 1 + 2 = 3.

What's nice about it is that you can use non-true/imaginary starting assumptions and create a new "math theory" still using perfectly logical thinking. Your conclusions are true assuming that your starting statement is true. Example : If we assume parallels can cross we can create elliptical and hyperbolic geometry where new theorems are true. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_postulate

As Tesla would say modern science is more about theory than experimenting.

I think that that's where FE and RE differ. FE believe the earth to be flat because of experimental evidence whereas RE base their belief on theory crafted evidence.


So rather than pushing my beliefs on you I'm more interested in understanding how FE is proven. I tried to find an example that wasn't too much theory (still a bit of math and physics involved) and as experimental as possible.

So here is an experimental proof of earth's rotation : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foucault_pendulum
How does it fit in FE theory ?




On a side note I truly respect the ingenuity of certain FE models that are very smart but I have to say thinking that NASA is lying to us to steal our money is just ridiculous.
1 year of USA defense budget is more than ALL the money spent on NASA since it's creation. I doubt that they would put so much effort in maintaining a lie on a planetary scale for so little return on investment.
Also the earth being Flat or Round doesn't change the fact that great scientific discoveries have been made thanks to NASA : http://list25.com/25-coolest-nasa-discoveries-that-changed-your-life/

So please stop the complot theory and focus on the science behind FE and RE.

Thank you for you participation =)

PS: not a native speaker so please excuse my mistakes
Welcome! The pendulum experiment is refuted by Rowbowtham in "Earth Not a Globe" as seen here: http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za39.htm His refutation basically boils down to claiming it's all due to weather. He also discusses how the experiment itself is NOT a 'direct proof' of a globular Earth here: http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za52.htm Basically saying that (at minimum at the time) the experiment wasn't conclusive enough because of too many variable outcomes. Thus, no round Earth.

You'll find Rowbowtham's work spoken of in high regard around here, so gaining a familiarity with it isn't a bad idea. Though be aware he is one of few voices speaking out, and his experiments must be taken at his word since his work was all done in the 1800's, and I've found little corroborating evidence to the soundness of his experiments so far.
FET - A few old books making claims and telling you how things must be based on the words contained therein. This sounds familiar....

The triangle doesn't work

Re: Intelectual curiosity
« Reply #2 on: July 10, 2017, 02:58:50 PM »
Okay, so if I was to put a pendulum in a controlled environment (temp and pressure do not change) and make the same experiment I would refute Rowbowtham's explanation right ?

Re: Intelectual curiosity
« Reply #3 on: July 10, 2017, 03:22:51 PM »
Okay, so if I was to put a pendulum in a controlled environment (temp and pressure do not change) and make the same experiment I would refute Rowbowtham's explanation right ?
Presuming it was consistent in each location with what was expected, it would refute the first point. The second link has three points that would need to be addressed in some manner.
FET - A few old books making claims and telling you how things must be based on the words contained therein. This sounds familiar....

The triangle doesn't work

Re: Intelectual curiosity
« Reply #4 on: July 11, 2017, 11:05:44 AM »
FIRSTLY,--When a pendulum, constructed according to plan of M. Foucault is allowed to vibrate, its plane of the vibration is often stationary and often variable. The variation is not uniform--is not always the same in the same place; nor the same in its rate, or velocity, or in its direction. This great variability in its behaviour is not compatible with the assumption of an earth or world globular in form and moving with uniform velocity. It cannot therefore be taken as evidence; for that which is inconstant is inadmissible, and not to be relied on. Hence it is not evidence, and nothing is proved or decided by its consideration.

Some variability between theory and reality is always there, when this variability is small enought then the theory matches the reality of the experiment. The existence of variability does not make a theory false, the amount of variability does. Here it's only stated that it exist (which is 100% true) but no other numbers or statistical analysis to back it up. "Often" isn't acceptable as far as scientific reviews go. This point is merely a statement with no proof.


SECONDLY.--Admitting the plane of vibration as changeable, where is the connection between such change and the supposed motion of the earth? What principle of reasoning guides the experimenter to the conclusion that it is the earth which moves underneath the pendulum; and not the pendulum which moves over the earth? What logical right or necessity forces one conclusion in preference to the other?

Both statements are true, movement is only defined relative to another object (principle of relativity). So if we assume that there is variation of the pendulum's movement, then it is true that the earth moves relative to the pendulum and the pendulum moves  relative to the earth.
This second point shows a lack of understanding of the principle of relativity which is one of the two postulates that Special relativity is based on. And I read in the wiki that Special relativity is accepted as true by FE.


THIRDLY.--Why was not the peculiar arrangement of the point of suspension of the pendulum specially considered in regard to its possible influence on the plane of oscillation? Was it not known, or was it overlooked, or was it, in the climax of theoretical revelry, ignored--thought unworthy of consideration--that a "ball-and-socket" joint, or a globular point of suspension on a plane surface, is one which facilitates circular motion more readily than any other, and that a pendulum so suspended (as M. Foucault's) could not, after passing over one arc of vibration, return through the same arc without many chances to one that its globular point of suspension would slightly turn or twist on its bed, and therefore give to the return or backward oscillation a slight change of direction? Changes in the electric and magnetic conditions of the atmosphere, as well as alterations in its density, temperature, and hygrometric state may all tend in addition to the peculiar mode of suspension, to make the pendulum oscillate in irregular directions. So far, then, as we have been able to trace the subject, we are compelled by the evidence obtained to deny that the variations observed in the oscillations of a freely vibrating pendulum have any connection whatever with

This point shows the same problems than the first point, no data, no experimental process, only statements that other thing than earth supposed rotation can affect the variation in the pendulum'movement. "Changes in the electric and magnetic conditions of the atmosphere, as well as alterations in its density, temperature, and hygrometric state may all tend in addition to the peculiar mode of suspension, to make the pendulum oscillate in irregular directions." this statement is true. However it is not sufficient to prove that the earth rotation theory is false.
To understand what causes this variation you have to take into account every possible cause. And then study how much each cause (temp, pressure, earth's rotation ...) creates this variation.

The fact is that there are plenty of studies about how earth's rotation explains this variation. However there is none that show temperature or pressure or the pendulum's particular build as a cause for the variation. A book that only "states" possible other causes without giving proper data to back it up isn't worth much in disproving the fact that the variation is caused mainly by earth rotation.

These experiments are quite easy to realise. It would be a great evidence of FE if you could build such an experiment to prove that Rowbowtham's explanation is right.

« Last Edit: July 11, 2017, 11:11:26 AM by WaterBell »

Re: Intelectual curiosity
« Reply #5 on: July 12, 2017, 04:12:56 AM »
FIRSTLY,--When a pendulum, constructed according to plan of M. Foucault is allowed to vibrate, its plane of the vibration is often stationary and often variable. The variation is not uniform--is not always the same in the same place; nor the same in its rate, or velocity, or in its direction. This great variability in its behaviour is not compatible with the assumption of an earth or world globular in form and moving with uniform velocity. It cannot therefore be taken as evidence; for that which is inconstant is inadmissible, and not to be relied on. Hence it is not evidence, and nothing is proved or decided by its consideration.

Some variability between theory and reality is always there, when this variability is small enought then the theory matches the reality of the experiment. The existence of variability does not make a theory false, the amount of variability does. Here it's only stated that it exist (which is 100% true) but no other numbers or statistical analysis to back it up. "Often" isn't acceptable as far as scientific reviews go. This point is merely a statement with no proof.


SECONDLY.--Admitting the plane of vibration as changeable, where is the connection between such change and the supposed motion of the earth? What principle of reasoning guides the experimenter to the conclusion that it is the earth which moves underneath the pendulum; and not the pendulum which moves over the earth? What logical right or necessity forces one conclusion in preference to the other?

Both statements are true, movement is only defined relative to another object (principle of relativity). So if we assume that there is variation of the pendulum's movement, then it is true that the earth moves relative to the pendulum and the pendulum moves  relative to the earth.
This second point shows a lack of understanding of the principle of relativity which is one of the two postulates that Special relativity is based on. And I read in the wiki that Special relativity is accepted as true by FE.


THIRDLY.--Why was not the peculiar arrangement of the point of suspension of the pendulum specially considered in regard to its possible influence on the plane of oscillation? Was it not known, or was it overlooked, or was it, in the climax of theoretical revelry, ignored--thought unworthy of consideration--that a "ball-and-socket" joint, or a globular point of suspension on a plane surface, is one which facilitates circular motion more readily than any other, and that a pendulum so suspended (as M. Foucault's) could not, after passing over one arc of vibration, return through the same arc without many chances to one that its globular point of suspension would slightly turn or twist on its bed, and therefore give to the return or backward oscillation a slight change of direction? Changes in the electric and magnetic conditions of the atmosphere, as well as alterations in its density, temperature, and hygrometric state may all tend in addition to the peculiar mode of suspension, to make the pendulum oscillate in irregular directions. So far, then, as we have been able to trace the subject, we are compelled by the evidence obtained to deny that the variations observed in the oscillations of a freely vibrating pendulum have any connection whatever with

This point shows the same problems than the first point, no data, no experimental process, only statements that other thing than earth supposed rotation can affect the variation in the pendulum'movement. "Changes in the electric and magnetic conditions of the atmosphere, as well as alterations in its density, temperature, and hygrometric state may all tend in addition to the peculiar mode of suspension, to make the pendulum oscillate in irregular directions." this statement is true. However it is not sufficient to prove that the earth rotation theory is false.
To understand what causes this variation you have to take into account every possible cause. And then study how much each cause (temp, pressure, earth's rotation ...) creates this variation.

The fact is that there are plenty of studies about how earth's rotation explains this variation. However there is none that show temperature or pressure or the pendulum's particular build as a cause for the variation. A book that only "states" possible other causes without giving proper data to back it up isn't worth much in disproving the fact that the variation is caused mainly by earth rotation.

These experiments are quite easy to realise. It would be a great evidence of FE if you could build such an experiment to prove that Rowbowtham's explanation is right.
Just a quick note, in physics, the law of conservation of energystates that the total energy of an isolated system remains constant. What that means is that within a closed system you would see one object acting on another. This is the same effect that causes not to feel that fact that we are spinning at hundreds of miles per hour while moving around the sun are thousands of miles per hour, we don't feel it because it doesn't effect us, because we are all in a closed system. This means the pendulum is as well and therefore the movement of the earth will never have an effect on the moment of the pendulum no matter which earth model you are using.

Re: Intelectual curiosity
« Reply #6 on: July 12, 2017, 04:32:39 AM »
FIRSTLY,--When a pendulum, constructed according to plan of M. Foucault is allowed to vibrate, its plane of the vibration is often stationary and often variable. The variation is not uniform--is not always the same in the same place; nor the same in its rate, or velocity, or in its direction. This great variability in its behaviour is not compatible with the assumption of an earth or world globular in form and moving with uniform velocity. It cannot therefore be taken as evidence; for that which is inconstant is inadmissible, and not to be relied on. Hence it is not evidence, and nothing is proved or decided by its consideration.

Some variability between theory and reality is always there, when this variability is small enought then the theory matches the reality of the experiment. The existence of variability does not make a theory false, the amount of variability does. Here it's only stated that it exist (which is 100% true) but no other numbers or statistical analysis to back it up. "Often" isn't acceptable as far as scientific reviews go. This point is merely a statement with no proof.


SECONDLY.--Admitting the plane of vibration as changeable, where is the connection between such change and the supposed motion of the earth? What principle of reasoning guides the experimenter to the conclusion that it is the earth which moves underneath the pendulum; and not the pendulum which moves over the earth? What logical right or necessity forces one conclusion in preference to the other?

Both statements are true, movement is only defined relative to another object (principle of relativity). So if we assume that there is variation of the pendulum's movement, then it is true that the earth moves relative to the pendulum and the pendulum moves  relative to the earth.
This second point shows a lack of understanding of the principle of relativity which is one of the two postulates that Special relativity is based on. And I read in the wiki that Special relativity is accepted as true by FE.


THIRDLY.--Why was not the peculiar arrangement of the point of suspension of the pendulum specially considered in regard to its possible influence on the plane of oscillation? Was it not known, or was it overlooked, or was it, in the climax of theoretical revelry, ignored--thought unworthy of consideration--that a "ball-and-socket" joint, or a globular point of suspension on a plane surface, is one which facilitates circular motion more readily than any other, and that a pendulum so suspended (as M. Foucault's) could not, after passing over one arc of vibration, return through the same arc without many chances to one that its globular point of suspension would slightly turn or twist on its bed, and therefore give to the return or backward oscillation a slight change of direction? Changes in the electric and magnetic conditions of the atmosphere, as well as alterations in its density, temperature, and hygrometric state may all tend in addition to the peculiar mode of suspension, to make the pendulum oscillate in irregular directions. So far, then, as we have been able to trace the subject, we are compelled by the evidence obtained to deny that the variations observed in the oscillations of a freely vibrating pendulum have any connection whatever with

This point shows the same problems than the first point, no data, no experimental process, only statements that other thing than earth supposed rotation can affect the variation in the pendulum'movement. "Changes in the electric and magnetic conditions of the atmosphere, as well as alterations in its density, temperature, and hygrometric state may all tend in addition to the peculiar mode of suspension, to make the pendulum oscillate in irregular directions." this statement is true. However it is not sufficient to prove that the earth rotation theory is false.
To understand what causes this variation you have to take into account every possible cause. And then study how much each cause (temp, pressure, earth's rotation ...) creates this variation.

The fact is that there are plenty of studies about how earth's rotation explains this variation. However there is none that show temperature or pressure or the pendulum's particular build as a cause for the variation. A book that only "states" possible other causes without giving proper data to back it up isn't worth much in disproving the fact that the variation is caused mainly by earth rotation.

These experiments are quite easy to realise. It would be a great evidence of FE if you could build such an experiment to prove that Rowbowtham's explanation is right.
Just a quick note, in physics, the law of conservation of energystates that the total energy of an isolated system remains constant. What that means is that within a closed system you would see one object acting on another. This is the same effect that causes not to feel that fact that we are spinning at hundreds of miles per hour while moving around the sun are thousands of miles per hour, we don't feel it because it doesn't effect us, because we are all in a closed system. This means the pendulum is as well and therefore the movement of the earth will never have an effect on the moment of the pendulum no matter which earth model you are using.
I can't say if you're misapplying the law, or not understanding it correctly (as physics is not my expertise) but what I can say is people who know a lot more about it have done the experiment time and again to show this is true. The theory/math behind it and basic example is given here. As well a link from that article gives us the Foucault pendulum experiment done upon the South pole. That experiment verified the accuracy of the equation put forth by Foucault's experiments when done exactly upon one of the poles.

If you have another explanation for why the pendulum rotates at the speed/rate it does, I would love to hear it, and if you can conclusively prove it I'm sure the science community would love to see it too.
FET - A few old books making claims and telling you how things must be based on the words contained therein. This sounds familiar....

The triangle doesn't work

Re: Intelectual curiosity
« Reply #7 on: July 13, 2017, 08:57:53 AM »
Can't say better than CuriousSquirel.

Any answers ?

Online 3DGeek

  • *
  • Posts: 565
    • View Profile
Re: Intelectual curiosity
« Reply #8 on: July 13, 2017, 02:17:13 PM »
Welcome! The pendulum experiment is refuted by Rowbowtham in "Earth Not a Globe" as seen here: http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za39.htm His refutation basically boils down to claiming it's all due to weather. He also discusses how the experiment itself is NOT a 'direct proof' of a globular Earth here: http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za52.htm Basically saying that (at minimum at the time) the experiment wasn't conclusive enough because of too many variable outcomes. Thus, no round Earth.

The first article talks about the variable speed of a pendulum depending on latitude.  He's talking about a "Focault pendulum" but this is actually about pendulums in general.

In RET, gravity varies from pole to equator, in part because the earth isn't a perfect sphere - so the poles are closer to the center than the equator - and in part because the earth is spinning, resulting in centrifugal force (technically, a pseudo-force) that opposes gravity to some small degree.  Since the period of a pendulum varies with the force of gravity, this explains the small changes in the period of a pendulum.

In FET, Rowbotham claims that the higher temperatures at the lower latitudes is the explanation - perhaps he imagines the air resistance would be a little different - or that expansion and contraction of the pendulum arm itself would make the difference.

Well - back when Rowbotham was thinking about this - that MIGHT have been a valid consideration.  However, these days there are Focault pendulums in dozens, perhaps hundreds of museums - many of which are heated and airconditioned.   These pendulums are also checked for their length and they are EXCEEDINGLY heavy - I've seen them with 2' diameter brass weights on the ends.   With temperature control and careful checking of the length of the pendulum, there can be no doubt that the effect of subtle changes in gravity on such devices by FAR outweighs any other effects.

Furthermore - we have confirmation from simply weighing things in different places that gravity varies from place to place.   We don't even need a pendulum to demonstrate that.

In fact, since we know things weigh different amounts in different places - then if temperature variations mattered then we'd have to explain why the pendulum's swing doesn't change even more than it does.

So Rowbotham is for 100% sure incorrect about this.   Gravity DOES vary from place to place - and FET has a very tough time explaining that adequately.

OK - so what about the second paper?

This *IS* talking specifically about a Focault Pendulum.   This is a kind of pendulum that is free to swing in any direction.

If you visit any one of the museums and other locations listed here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Foucault_pendulums - you'll be able to see a demonstration of such things.

Typically, they are very long and have very heavy 'bobs' at the end, typically made from brass or some other non-magnetic material.   They are swung from the tops of towers or inside tall stairwells.   The one in the London Science Museum is 22 meters long and takes a leisurely 9 seconds to swing from one end to the other.

With the length and weight of these things - they swing all day long without anyone having to pull them back to provide more momentum.  Air resistance is negligible - and with a brass bob - the Earth's magnetic field is irrelevent.

What's interesting about these pendulums is that the axis of their swing gradually changes throughout the day - you can actually tell time by them - and most places that have them put a convenient scale on the floor so you can do exactly that.

What you find is that through the day, the direction of the pendulums swing moves by 15 degrees per hour.   Therefore, it's swing direction moves through a complete circle over the course of a day.   They do this completely reliably - but the effect is only strongly obvious for places far from the equator.  Focault pendulums don't work on the equator.

The RET reason for this is that the earth is rotating - but the pendulum is continuing to swing as close to the direction it was set off in as it can.   At the North or South pole, this would be extremely obvious - if you pulled the bob in the direction where the sun is and then released it - the pendulum would continue to swing towards the sun throughout the day.   That also works when you're further from the pole - and the visible result is very compelling.

According to Rowbotham - the effect is "magnetic".   Well - that would work if any significant fraction of the mass of the thing were made of a magnetic material like iron.  But most that I've seen are brass - so that doesn't work.   Not only that - but the position of the magnetic pole doesn't change through the day - so if these devices worked as he claims, they'd always swing North/South...and they don't.

Now - he points to a couple of examples where this effect didn't happen...but we don't know whether the experimenter screwed up in some way.  It's very important (for example) that the top of the structure is fixed VERY firmly.   In the example he discusses, it was fixed to the frame of a skylight.  So it's quite possible that some sympathetic vibration was set up in that one very specific experiment that screwed up the results.

HOWEVER: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Foucault_pendulums lists several HUNDREDS of these things displayed in museums around the world that change their swing axis by 15 degrees per hour.   The fact that he found ONE that didn't - hardly disproves the fact that hundreds of carefully constructed pendulums DO NOT swing towards the poles and DO track the rotation of the Earth.

So picking one dusty old experiment and comparing it to literally hundreds of modern experiments is hardly the kind of compelling evidence we need here.

Honestly - if I was an FE'er - I'd be trying to claim that the Focault pendulum swing axis was driven by some bizarro property of the Sun itself.   That's a better fit for FET than the ramblings of Rowbotham.

So, no.   Rowbothams ramblings about pendulums are TRIVIALLY disproven.

You'll find Rowbowtham's work spoken of in high regard around here, so gaining a familiarity with it isn't a bad idea. Though be aware he is one of few voices speaking out, and his experiments must be taken at his word since his work was all done in the 1800's, and I've found little corroborating evidence to the soundness of his experiments so far.

I've read his stuff - it's nonsense.

I don't doubt he was an honest man - but his tendency to pick one single data point (a badly set up focault pendulum) and to use that to make such insanely large sweeping claims...that's not how science works.

So by all means treat him as a religious figure - but please don't claim he has a scientific explanation for the world.

Go look at a REAL Focault pendulum and come to your own conclusions...or get a pair of binoculars and look at the mountains on the moon.  Either way.


Re: Intelectual curiosity
« Reply #9 on: July 25, 2017, 09:09:56 PM »
Just a quick note, in physics, the law of conservation of energystates that the total energy of an isolated system remains constant. What that means is that within a closed system you would see one object acting on another. This is the same effect that causes not to feel that fact that we are spinning at hundreds of miles per hour while moving around the sun are thousands of miles per hour, we don't feel it because it doesn't effect us, because we are all in a closed system. This means the pendulum is as well and therefore the movement of the earth will never have an effect on the moment of the pendulum no matter which earth model you are using.

That's not what the conservation of energy - or the First Law of Thermodynamics - says at all, and is a complete misrepresentation and/or misunderstanding of it.

A pendulum in a box, even a vacuum box, is not remotely a "closed system". The "closed system" in that context, is the universe - or it could be argued, the solar system or even the Earth. (Depending on the context of what is being discussed, and to what precision.) Anything in the box is affected by gravitational force, vibrations, the Earth's rotation, magnetism (if the pendulum is made of magnetic material), etc.

The reason we don't feel the rotation of the Earth also has absolutely nothing to do with the conservation of energy. It is because we don't notice locally constant velocity, only changes to linear velocity - i.e. linear or lateral acceleration. This notion is the backbone of Einstein's theory of Special Relativity. Not only do we "not notice" locally constant linear velocity, without context it is impossible to detect - or even say - there is "velocity" at all. Special relativity says that linear velocity is more or less meaningless, without relative context.

What we do notice physiologically, and can even in a black void of context, is significant change in vector - either significant enough linear acceleration (e.g. accelerating from a stoplight or standing on the Earth), lateral acceleration (e.g. turning), self-rotation, and/or being on or in a rotating body. Notice I said "significant enough". Whether or not you can detect being on or in something else that is rotating, depends on speed and the radius between you and the center of rotation (combined in "angular velocity"), and other factors that could completely drown out such sensation, such as gravitational force, fluid dynamics, etc. In the case of the Earth, the radius is so large - incomprehensibly so really relative to our size - that the angular velocity is completely drowned out by the effectively constant linear velocity, and also by the gravitational attraction of the giant Earth on you. So even though the differentials between gravitational force and centripetal force can be measured by sensitive equipment between the mountains and sea level at a given latitude, and between a given elevation at the equator and near the poles, it is completely undetectable by people.

I hear FE'ers say, "then why doesn't the Earth fling you off of the equator"? Because gravity - again - as comparatively weak as it is, completely overwhelms the centripetal force by several orders of magnitude. Gravitational attraction between two objects is calculated using the mass of BOTH objects, not just one. So the massive Earth tugging on a little human is quite substantial. (And is why gravity easily overwhelms the vastly stronger magnetic force beyond some distance.) FE'ers love to visualize a wet tennis ball spinning at 1,000 kph, and imagine the water flying off. But that's a strawman visualization - and either incomprehensibly stupid, or intellectually dishonest. The accurate visualization is to imagine a tennis ball spinning at the exact same *rotational rate* as Earth - one revolution per day. Because the apparent "speed" on the surface is dependent on the radius to the center - and it's a loooong way to the center of the Earth. (To help further understand this fundamental geometric concept, imagine standing on a sphere 14 billion light-years in diameter. The surface is moving at 1000 kph - about the same as Earth's surface at the equator. But with a radius of 7b light years, the actual angular velocity would be immeasurably slow and essentially irrelevant in practical human terms - incomprehensibly slower than the angular velocity of any part of a typical galaxy.)