[DoNiE]

Hello Ladies and Gentlemen,

I am a new member here, stumbled across the idea of a flat earth many years ago and put it to the back of my mind as I thought it was a bit far fetched, just 6 months ago I took another look and I have to admit, i`m hooked! the globe just doesnt work for me anymore.

Anyways so I have been thinking about the globe model, I have a question concerning the gravity at the equator (where we are spinning in excess of 1000mhp against the gravity at the pole.

Firstly correct me if I am wrong but I have it in my mind as follows, picture a tennis balls spinning, on the equator of the ball we place a pin, we place another pin at the top (pole?) when we spin the balls the pin at the equator is visually spinning with the ball covering a large distance, the other at the pole does not appear to be moving its just spinning, in fact lets use this pin at the pole to rotate the ball. now as the pin at the top is rotated fully once the pin at the equator also does a full loop, it has traveled much further.

The issue is the force of the spin would place greater g force on the pin at the equator, thus meaning gravity has less effect onit, if we spun fast enough it should leave the ball, the pin at the top would feel hardly any of this gforce and not be forced out of the ball. So with that concept in mind would it not be the same for the earth, at the equator we should feel less gravity? at the pole we should feel real heavy? there must be a two points on the ball earth where you do not spin and cover the large distance (like at the equator) but rather just turn (like the pin at the top of the ball).

Another way to picture it is if you have a tennis ball with 4 pins sticking out one at north, south, east and west, if the ball is spinning from east to west it makes sense that north and south remain still, the pins still spin but do not move if that makes sense

Maybe I have it all wrong but it makes sense in my mind can someone help me out with this, is there two points on the earth where you simply turn? like the pins in north and south, if so is the gravity any less? if the gravity isnt less why not? seems impossible to have the spin without the different gravity levels.

We were always told in school that more gravity would mean a change in size for the organism living there, I think it was the more gravity the smaller we would be, so we should see really short people at the poles? taller people at the equator?

just a thought anyways let me hear your thoughts on this, I dont think the apparent tilt of the globe makes a difference we should still have two points on the planet where we simply turn and not spin. hope I am making some sense

Cheers

[StinkyOne]

Gravity at the equator is only .5% weaker. If there was such a height difference, it would be very small. There is also the matter of humans not originating from polar regions/not inhabiting those regions in large numbers.

[Curious Squirrel]

Always remember when imagining these types of scenarios. The globe only makes one full rotation per 24 hours. I know "1000 mph!" sounds very fast, but considering it as one rotation per day, or half rotation per 12 hours gives a much better feel for the relative speed. Gravity acceleration is roughly 9.8 m/s/s. At the equator the acceleration due to centrifugal force is only about 0.02 m/s/s. A very small difference. If you weighed 100 pounds at the pole, you would with 99.65 pounds at the equator.

[DoNiE]

Thanks for the information much appreciated, it still seems odd there would be so little difference in gravity at the two locations given the apparent difference in position on the ball to me. The weight difference just doesn't make sense to me, given the size of the globe and with the curvature while doing 1000mph you would still feel allot different to a person not navigating the curve at 1000mph and dropping 8 inches per mile (squared)

Equator = 1000mph
Pole = 0mhp

If not the gravity surely we would feel disorientated by the difference in speed, also wind speed must be much higher at the equator.

It really makes no sense that our biological bodies would not be able to sense any of this. when you jump in a swimming pool or sit on a train you feel the weight shift its something our bodies have built in to detect.

Its off topic to my above point but I have been trying to find the gas which sits directly between space (vacuum) and the air we breath, also is there a layer of helium up there? if I release a helium balloon I assume it will float to a particular level and go no higher (the rubber around the balloon keeping it bellow the other helium gas which is not inside a balloon) so my question is if I then pop the balloon and the gas inside joins the other light gas then there must be a thin layer of this gas above us, is there a lighter gas than helium? we must have layers of air then light gas, lighter gas then something then the vacuum. Can we burn rockets through all these gases without them exploding? furthermore I thought you need air in order to burn rockets. Its very confusing

[StinkyOne]

Thanks for the information much appreciated, it still seems odd there would be so little difference in gravity at the two locations given the apparent difference in position on the ball to me. The weight difference just doesn't make sense to me, given the size of the globe and with the curvature while doing 1000mph you would still feel allot different to a person not navigating the curve at 1000mph and dropping 8 inches per mile (squared)

Equator = 1000mph
Pole = 0mhp

If not the gravity surely we would feel disorientated by the difference in speed, also wind speed must be much higher at the equator.

It really makes no sense that our biological bodies would not be able to sense any of this. when you jump in a swimming pool or sit on a train you feel the weight shift its something our bodies have built in to detect.

Its off topic to my above point but I have been trying to find the gas which sits directly between space (vacuum) and the air we breath, also is there a layer of helium up there? if I release a helium balloon I assume it will float to a particular level and go no higher (the rubber around the balloon keeping it bellow the other helium gas which is not inside a balloon) so my question is if I then pop the balloon and the gas inside joins the other light gas then there must be a thin layer of this gas above us, is there a lighter gas than helium? we must have layers of air then light gas, lighter gas then something then the vacuum. Can we burn rockets through all these gases without them exploding? furthermore I thought you need air in order to burn rockets. Its very confusing

Your level of understanding explains why you might think the Earth is flat. (i.e. you're really wrong on this stuff) You need to remember that YOU are also rotating at 1000MPH. Just like sitting in a car going 70 on the highway, your body feels nothing. This is so basic. Rockets include their own oxidizer, they don't get it from the atmosphere. We could talk about stoichiometry, but I have a feeling that would be WAY over your head. Stay in school.

[Curious Squirrel]

If you close your eyes can you tell the difference between being on a bus and being in a plane? I know I certainly can't. We can tell when something is changing speed, we have a very hard time telling the difference between speeds without external stimuli to inform us of the difference. Why should it be any different for the spinning Earth? Also remember no one really lives on/at either pole.

Gases aren't really layered like that in RE. A helium balloon will pop due to expansion before it stops rising. Atmosphere still technically exists at the point usually called space, it's simply very very thin. The atmosphere isn't made up of any pure gases anywhere. I would have to double check, but I believe rocket fuel is oxygenated, that is it carries it's own oxygen in its molecular structure. Or something like that, it's been a few years but that's what I recall reading. If I'm wrong hopefully someone can correct me.

[DoNiE]

If you put your hand out of the buss it will feel different that putting your hand out of the plane, your right we cant feel it until either put our hand out to feel the wind speed or we have a reference point to check speed against. My problem is that wind speed I would assume is very similar at the pole and at the equator, how can that be if the equator is traveling 1000 times faster, the wind would also be 1000 times faster.

I am in London at the moment the sky is moving slow, I have a gut feeling the sky would look the same at the pole although the ground there is hardly moving, if I were in a plane traveling from here to the pole the ground beneath me would magically be slowing down the whole way there but the wind remain the same?

If something is moving then the wind above it gets dragged along, If we are moving at 1000mph at the equator the wind above us must be moving at similar speed for it to remain relatively slow to us, so that being said the wind must be slowing as we move to the pole, do pilots need to adjust for this? Sorry for all the questions just trying to make sense of it all.

[Curious Squirrel]

Stinky might not have said it very kindly, but I do really recommend picking up some books. This is very basic RE information. That said, I will keep doing my best to answer, but I do not claim to be any sort of authority on these matters.

The air is held to the Earth by gravity. Thus it's pulled along with it at the same speed. Winds, hurricanes and similar phenomena are some of the results of the air trying to stop moving. This is the corialis effect. Planes don't need to account for it, because the change is gradual and they are moving through it and this are pulled along, much like a swimmer would be.

Also for the record your "gut feeling" doesn't hold much weight as an argument for anything, especially on these forums.

[DoNiE]

Thanks for the information much appreciated, it still seems odd there would be so little difference in gravity at the two locations given the apparent difference in position on the ball to me. The weight difference just doesn't make sense to me, given the size of the globe and with the curvature while doing 1000mph you would still feel allot different to a person not navigating the curve at 1000mph and dropping 8 inches per mile (squared)

Equator = 1000mph
Pole = 0mhp

If not the gravity surely we would feel disorientated by the difference in speed, also wind speed must be much higher at the equator.

It really makes no sense that our biological bodies would not be able to sense any of this. when you jump in a swimming pool or sit on a train you feel the weight shift its something our bodies have built in to detect.

Its off topic to my above point but I have been trying to find the gas which sits directly between space (vacuum) and the air we breath, also is there a layer of helium up there? if I release a helium balloon I assume it will float to a particular level and go no higher (the rubber around the balloon keeping it bellow the other helium gas which is not inside a balloon) so my question is if I then pop the balloon and the gas inside joins the other light gas then there must be a thin layer of this gas above us, is there a lighter gas than helium? we must have layers of air then light gas, lighter gas then something then the vacuum. Can we burn rockets through all these gases without them exploding? furthermore I thought you need air in order to burn rockets. Its very confusing

Your level of understanding explains why you might think the Earth is flat. (i.e. you're really wrong on this stuff) You need to remember that YOU are also rotating at 1000MPH. Just like sitting in a car going 70 on the highway, your body feels nothing. This is so basic. Rockets include their own oxidizer, they don't get it from the atmosphere. We could talk about stoichiometry, but I have a feeling that would be WAY over your head. Stay in school.

I never once questioned the globe model but everyday observations keeping an open mind is making it harder to accept, my science is grade B GCSE level (study in school until 16 years old) I was one of the smarter kids in class but never took it further, I instead went into computer science / programming / networking at university so apologies if I cannot comprehend the science / terminology behind all this but it does seem to me very strange that to understand we are spinning I need to be a math expert or study this stuff for years on end, should it be easier to prove believe me I would like nothing more than to go back to thinking its a ball however, my everyday observation and my intuition is telling me something (i dont know what) is wrong with the globe model.

[douglips]

Thanks for the information much appreciated, it still seems odd there would be so little difference in gravity at the two locations given the apparent difference in position on the ball to me. The weight difference just doesn't make sense to me, given the size of the globe and with the curvature while doing 1000mph you would still feel allot different to a person not navigating the curve at 1000mph and dropping 8 inches per mile (squared)

Equator = 1000mph
Pole = 0mhp

Centripetal acceleration is v^2/r, if you plug in 1000 mph ^2 / 3969 miles you get 0.03 m / s^2. Gravity's acceleration is 9.8 m/s^2, so you can see that the acceleration from the earth's spin is tiny compared to gravity.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centripetal_force

If not the gravity surely we would feel disorientated by the difference in speed, also wind speed must be much higher at the equator.

Have you ever been on a train or in an automobile travelling 100 or 200 km/h? Have you ever been on an airplane travelling 750 km/h? Did it feel disorienting when the air (or tracks or road) were very smooth?

The air at the equator is also spinning with the earth, just like the water in your cup on an airplane doesn't suddenly hit you in the face at 750 km/h, the air at the equator is just along for the ride.

It really makes no sense that our biological bodies would not be able to sense any of this. when you jump in a swimming pool or sit on a train you feel the weight shift its something our bodies have built in to detect.

You only feel the weight shift when you are accelerating, not when you're moving at a steady speed. Once the train is moving steadily you don't feel the weight shift. It's easier to experience on an airplane because train tracks are usually at least a bit bumpy, but air can be smooth.

Its off topic to my above point but I have been trying to find the gas which sits directly between space (vacuum) and the air we breath, also is there a layer of helium up there?

No, but sort of.

Gases don't separate so easily like the oil & water in a salad dressing, because the molecules are much farther apart and much faster, they mostly stay mixed.

But, they don't stay PERFECTLY mixed, so when you go very very high up you get more helium and hydrogen than you do lower down, but it's never a pure layer of one gas or another.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Earth

if I release a helium balloon I assume it will float to a particular level and go no higher (the rubber around the balloon keeping it bellow the other helium gas which is not inside a balloon) so my question is if I then pop the balloon and the gas inside joins the other light gas then there must be a thin layer of this gas above us, is there a lighter gas than helium?

Hydrogen is lighter than helium (1/2 the mass per molecule).

we must have layers of air then light gas, lighter gas then something then the vacuum.

It's more like the gas is made of mostly the same stuff (although it does have more helium and less nitrogen and oxygen when you get VERY high) but the gas is much less dense, i.e. the molecules are very far apart.

Can we burn rockets through all these gases without them exploding? furthermore I thought you need air in order to burn rockets. Its very confusing

You need air for jet engines, you don't need air for rockets. Typically rockets either have liquid hydrogen (or kerosene or something like that) as well as liquid oxygen, and burn them together to make hot exhaust gas, OR, they have a solid propellant that will burn without adding air, like gunpowder does.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocket_engine

[douglips]

If you put your hand out of the buss it will feel different that putting your hand out of the plane, your right we cant feel it until either put our hand out to feel the wind speed or we have a reference point to check speed against. My problem is that wind speed I would assume is very similar at the pole and at the equator, how can that be if the equator is traveling 1000 times faster, the wind would also be 1000 times faster.

You can't stick your hand out of the airplane because the windows don't open. Similarly, there isn't anywhere to stick your hand "out the window" on earth - the air is moving along with you.

I am in London at the moment the sky is moving slow, I have a gut feeling the sky would look the same at the pole although the ground there is hardly moving, if I were in a plane traveling from here to the pole the ground beneath me would magically be slowing down the whole way there but the wind remain the same?

You have latched on to a real effect, the Coriolis effect. As you fly from London to the North Pole you start off moving to the east and end up not moving to the east by the time you get to the pole. In an airplane it's not really noticeable because the motion in the atmosphere is pushing on the airplane much more than the difference in speed required.

To go from the equator to the poles is about 6000 miles, and you need to lose 1000 mph of speed to the east by the time you get there. If you are going 500 mph in an airplane it will take 12 hours to get there, so you need to be accelerating/decelerating only about 83 mph per hour. Remember cars are quoted as times in seconds to go from zero to sixty mph, so it's no problem for an airplane to accelerate 80 mph in an hour without you even noticing.

The coriolis effect is noticeable in things like artillery and missile trajectories, and you can play with it at a children's playground if you go on a carousel/roundabout and toss a ball to your kid while the roundabout is spinning. Remember when you do this, though, that you are spinning WAY faster than the earth, the earth only spins once per day.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coriolis_force

If something is moving then the wind above it gets dragged along, If we are moving at 1000mph at the equator the wind above us must be moving at similar speed for it to remain relatively slow to us, so that being said the wind must be slowing as we move to the pole, do pilots need to adjust for this? Sorry for all the questions just trying to make sense of it all.

Pilots don't need to consciously adjust for this, but those exact forces  you are talking about are what leads to prevailing winds on the earth:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_wind_patterns

Since the winds are blowing across the path that airplanes are flying, and pilots have to correct for the wind, you don't notice the much smaller coriolis force.

Don't be sorry for asking questions! I'm not sure why this got moved to debates when it seems quite clear you are asking questions.

[douglips]

I never once questioned the globe model but everyday observations keeping an open mind is making it harder to accept, my science is grade B GCSE level (study in school until 16 years old) I was one of the smarter kids in class but never took it further, I instead went into computer science / programming / networking at university so apologies if I cannot comprehend the science / terminology behind all this but it does seem to me very strange that to understand we are spinning I need to be a math expert or study this stuff for years on end, should it be easier to prove believe me I would like nothing more than to go back to thinking its a ball however, my everyday observation and my intuition is telling me something (i dont know what) is wrong with the globe model.

There is nothing wrong with questioning if the earth is flat or round. It's clear to me after looking at the evidence that it is round, but science should never say "Shut up and stop asking questions."

If you've gotten into computer programming, then you might find it interesting that there are many software libraries that calculate sunrise and sunset. Here's one, I haven't examined it to see if it is correct, but there are many and if you go to timeanddate.com you can see that at least one such software library is correct.
https://github.com/mikereedell/sunrisesunsetlib-java/blob/master/src/main/java/com/luckycatlabs/sunrisesunset/calculator/SolarEventCalculator.java

These can take a location in a latitude longitude format and compute when the sun will rise and set on a given date. This doesn't mean that the earth is round, but it does mean that when we think about the earth being round and do math, we get the right answers. There is no software library based on the idea that the earth is flat, because if you start with the idea of the earth being flat and do math, you get the wrong answers.

I'm not going to tell you that you will be able to understand everything along the path to knowing if the earth is flat or round, but you can definitely make progress. Sometimes, though, you will need to understand basic or even advanced math to make the leap from one level of understanding to another.

If you went to university you must have studied math to some extent, algebra? Trigonometry? Geometry? If you remember things like the pythagorean theorem or what sines/cosines/tangents are it will help you understand.

[douglips]

just a thought anyways let me hear your thoughts on this, I dont think the apparent tilt of the globe makes a difference we should still have two points on the planet where we simply turn and not spin. hope I am making some sense

Cheers

Yes, there are two points on the planet where you can stand and simply be spinning in place. I'm not sure what you mean though when you use turning and spinning differently. If you stand on the south pole or north pole and it's winter, you'll see the stars rotating around you, neither setting nor rising. If you are on a pole and it's summer, you will see the sun rotate around you during the day, neither setting nor rising. At the pole, the sun rises and sets once per year, very slowly, as summer fades to winter which fades back to summer again.

[devils advocate]

Hi DoNiE

As you have noticed here you join the FLAT earth society and post a decent question based on your concern that actually earth might be flat and what do you get? A lot of informative helpful answers from people trying to help you who all happen to think earth is a globe. You might well ask; "why are my fellow flat earthers not assuring me here in my moment of doubt?